Madras HC Places Mugappair Christian Burial Ground Under Corporation Control, Bars Private Fees Amid ₹1 Lakh Charge Allegations

The petitioner sought a direction for the provision of burial and related ceremonies for Christians at a site of approximately 66 ares in Mugappair, said to have been used as a burial ground for about 40 years.

He alleged that the ninth respondent, who had been entrusted with its maintenance, was demanding money for burials.

The Court had earlier recorded the State’s undertaking to correct the revenue records and transfer the land to the local body, and later directed authorities to prevent the ninth respondent or his associates from collecting charges.

Following police action, the ninth respondent gave an undertaking in separate anticipatory-bail proceedings that he had vacated the property and had no future claim to it.

The petitioner subsequently stated that the site was locked and the community could not access it for ceremonies.

A contempt petition alleging non-compliance with the Court’s order of 11 February 2026 was also before the Court.

The Court exercised its writ jurisdiction under Article 226, invoked in the petition’s prayer, to issue directions concerning the burial ground and the conduct of public authorities.

It relied on the State’s undertaking, recorded in the Court’s earlier order, to correct or mutate the revenue records and transfer the land to the local body.

No specific statutory provision or judicial precedent was identified as the basis for the Court’s final directions.

The Court considered that action had been taken against the ninth respondent and that, pursuant to his undertaking, he had vacated the premises and relinquished any future claim to the burial ground.

Because the site was nevertheless locked, the community’s access remained unresolved.

The Court therefore directed the Corporation’s Assistant Engineer, in the presence of the jurisdictional Inspector of Police, to take possession; vested authority and possession in the Corporation; and required the authorities to fulfil the earlier undertaking by correcting the revenue records and completing the transfer within six months.

To prevent a recurrence of the alleged collection of money, it barred private persons from claiming rights over the site or charging users and authorised the Corporation to act against interference.

No private person or third party may claim rights over the site or collect charges from community members, and the Corporation may act against interference.

The contempt petition was closed in view of the directions in the writ petition.