Muslim Family Can't Bury Deceased On Disputed Land When Community Graveyard Is Available: Gujarat High Court Denies Relief

The Gujarat High Court rejected a plea by Muslim residents of a village challenging a notice asking them to explain reasons for burying a body on a disputed land despite existence of a separate earmarked graveyard for the community. [2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 201]

Referring to a site inspection report of the disputed land showing graveyard for the Muslim community,  the court said that when there was already a burial ground earmarked, then it was not open for the petitioners to buried the deceased person at the land in question. 

The court was hearing a plea challenging a notice sent to Muslim residents of a village over use of a land  as burial ground.The petitioners contended that a notice was issued by Sarpanch of Rupavati Gram Panchayat District Bhavnagar informing them that the petitioners had conducted a burial near a crematorium for Hindus situated in the village.

As per the notice the petitioners were asked to explain that under what circumstances they had conducted the burial at the site in question; in absence of reasons the authorities, had informed the petitioners that the body was buried would be exhumed after appropriate religious rituals and would be buried once again at graveyard which was designated for the purpose.

The Sarpanch had also informed the petitioner that the petitioners should not ensure any law and order situation when the action as observed hereinabove, would be taken.

The petitioners had also challenged an order dated 16.06.2026 by Deputy Collector, Palitana rejecting the petitioners' representation for considering the disputed site as being part of a Muslim graveyard.

Justice Nikhil S Kariel in his order observed that, considering the sensitivity of the issue, the court had earlier directed the State's counsel to ensure a site visit by appropriate officers of the Revenue Department and the Panchayat Department and had sought a report.

Pursuant to this report was filed, regarding site visit of the graveyard, earmarked for persons of Muslim community.

With respect to the report the court noted:

"it appeared that the said burial ground is approximately 700 square meters in size and whereas it is fenced on all sides and there is also a gate on the burial ground and it is also pointed out that around half of the land has been used for burial purposes and the other half is completely empty. Considering such a position, to this Court it would appear that when there is a burial ground, earmarked for the persons of the Muslim community for burying the deceased of the said community, it was not open for the petitioners to have decided to have the deceased person of their family buried in the disputed 27 gunthas.

To this Court it would appear that it may have been a different matter that the burial ground, for persons of the Muslim community may have been at a far distance, which may have caused hardships to the family members of the deceased and whereas in view of such an exigency, the disputed place, may have been used as a burial ground yet, to this Court it would appear that the same is not the case".

The court said that in 2021-2022, a body which had been buried by the petitioners, was required to be exhumed from the place in question; thereafter it was buried at the community graveyard. The court said that under such circumstances, after four years, without having questioned the  decision or without having any clarity upon the same, it was not open for the petitioners to have used the same land in question for the purpose of burial.

"To this Court it would appear that when the appropriate authorities had taken a stand that the land in question could not have been used for burial purpose then it was open for the petitioners at the relevant point of time to have questioned the said decision or to have questioned the decision of not being permitted to use the above referred 27 gunthas as earmarked for the Muslim community as a graveyard, yet having not done so, after a period of four years, the petitioners are not entitled to unilaterally decide that the said land could be used for the purpose of burial of deceased persons from the Muslim community.

Even otherwise, as noticed hereinabove, there being a graveyard earmarked for persons of the very community in the village itself, the petitioners were not required to have created this issue, for no reason whatsoever. This Court notices that the land, which is used by the persons of the community as a graveyard is sufficient i.e. approximately 700 square meter in area and whereas the competent officers have certified that almost half of the land is open, which could be used for burial purposes," the court said. 

The court said that as there was already an appropriate burial ground for the persons of the community in question which could have been used for burying the deceased person in the present matter, the stand taken by the petitioners as regards the disputed site "appears to be completely unjustified".

The court thus said that it does not find any error committed by the Sarpanch in issuing the notice calling upon the petitioners to show appropriate documents regarding the land which was used as a burial ground and/or of exhuming the body in question.

At this stage the petitioners' counsel said that petitioners would themselves exhume the body of the deceased and would bury the body in the community burial site.

Taking the statement on record the court said that the petitioners would exhume the body and bury it at the graveyard earmarked within 10 days. It however said that in case the petitioners do not carry out the process within the time period, it would be open for the State/Panchayat Authorities to take steps after intimating the petitioners.

The court said that the authorities would exhume the body following appropriate religious rituals and shall also ensure that the dignity of the deceased is maintained at all costs.

The plea was dismissed. 

Case title: MUBARAK KASAMBHAI PADARSHI v/s  STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS

R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9156 of 2026

Click Here To Read/Download Order

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 201