Subsequent Settlement Of Residents Not A Ground To Shift A Crematorium : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that subsequent settlement of residents in city/town by itself cannot be a ground to shift cremetorium.The bench of Justices MR Shah and MM Sundresh allowed appeal filed by South Delhi Municipal Corporation challenging the Delhi High Court order that directed it to shift the crematorium at Village Masoodpur to Kishangarh. Maintenance of said places is an obligatory function of Municipal Corporation, it added.A Residents Welfare Association of Vasant Kunj had approached the High Court seeking a direction to Corporation not to permit the use of cremation ground at Masoodpur as cremation ground. The said cremation ground is in existence since last more than 100 years. They submitted before the High Court that Delhi Development Authority (DDA) has already provided cremation ground at other place in the same area. The High Court directed the Corporation to take an appropriate decision in this regard. Thereafter, the Standing Committee of the Corporation took a decision not to close the crematorium at Masoodpur Village, by observing that it is not in the public interest to close the crematorium at Masoodpur Village and that the crematorium at Masoodpur Village is being used for the village since long. The corporation thus filed an application before the High Court to modify the earlier order which was dismissed.Before the Apex Court, the appellant corporation contended that when a conscious decision has been taken by the Standing Committee of the Municipal Corporation not to close the crematorium at Village Masoodpur the High Court ought to have modified its earlier order. On the other hand, the residents association contended that the crematorium is nearer to the residential complexes of Vasant Kunj and therefore, it is not in the interest of residents of Vasant Kunj to continue the crematorium at Village Masoodpur.The bench noticed that the residential colonies in Vasant Kunj have come into existence in 1990 and during that time there was already a crematorium at Village Masoodpur."When the residents of Vasant Kunj started residing on and after 1990, there was already a crematorium at Village Masoodpur. Merely because subsequently the residents of Vasant Kunj/locality have started residing, it cannot be a ground to shift the crematorium and/or not to use the crematorium at Village Masoodpur.", the bench observed.Referring to Section 42(f) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, the court observed that it is the duty cast upon the Municipal Corporation to make provision for regulation of places for the disposal of dead and the provision of maintenance of said places is an obligatory function of Municipal Corporation. "Therefore, until and unless the conditions as mentioned in Section 391 of the Act, 1957 are satisfied and it is specifically found that any burning or burial ground has become offensive, or dangerous to the health of the persons residing at neighbourhood, the burning and burial ground can be ordered to be closed with the previous sanction of the Standing Committee. A conscious decision has been taken by the Standing 8 Committee not to close the crematorium at Village Masoodpur looking to the public interest and in the interest of village people of Village Masoodpur. If the request made on behalf of respondent No. 1 is accepted in that case on the settlement of the residents subsequently every crematorium in the city/town will have to be shifted outside the town/city, which shall not be in the interest of the residents of the village/city/town.", the court added.While allowing the appeal, the court also directed the Municipal Corporation to take steps to modernise the crematorium by shifting it to a modern electric crematorium which shall be in the larger public interest of the village people as well as the residents of the neighbourhood area.Case detailsSouth Delhi Municipal Corporation vs Federation of Residents Welfare Association Vasant Kunj | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 883 | CA 7614 OF 2022 | 21 October 2022 | Justices MR Shah and MM SundreshCounsel: Adv Vandana Sehgal for appellant, Adv Karan Singh Bhati for respondentHeadnotesDelhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 ; Sections 42(f), 390 391 - Until and unless the conditions as mentioned in Section 391 are satisfied and it is specifically found that any burning or burial ground has become offensive, or dangerous to the health of the persons residing at neighbourhood, the burning and burial ground can be ordered to be closed with the previous sanction of the Standing Committee - Subsequent settlement of residents in city/town by itself not a ground to shift cremetorium - It is the duty cast upon the Municipal Corporation to make provision for regulation of places for the disposal of ...

Subsequent Settlement Of Residents Not A Ground To Shift A Crematorium : Supreme Court

Ashok KM

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Subsequent Settlement Of Residents Not A Ground To Shift A Crematorium : Supreme Court

Ashok KM

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers