Gujarat HC Rejects Petition Challenging Sarpanch Notice on Disputed Burial, Orders Petitioner to Exhume Body in 10 Days

The Gujarat High Court rejected a writ petition challenging a Gram Panchayat notice over a burial carried out in a disputed 27-guntha plot in Rupavati village, Bhavnagar, and directed the petitioner to exhume and re-inter the deceased in the designated community graveyard within 10 days.

Justice Nikhil S. Kariel, sitting singly at the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad, on 13 July 2026 dismissed a Special Civil Application filed by Mubarak Kasambhai Padarshi and others against the State of Gujarat and the Sarpanch of Rupavati Gram Panchayat, District Bhavnagar. The petitioners had challenged a show cause notice dated 29 June 2026 issued by the Sarpanch over a burial conducted on survey no. 45 in the village, and a separate order dated 16 June 2026 by which the Deputy Collector, Palitana had rejected a representation seeking recognition of 27 gunthas of that land as a Muslim graveyard. The court found a designated Muslim burial ground in the same village was still substantially available, making the petitioners' decision to use the disputed site unjustified.

The Burial, the Notice, and the Prayers Before Court

The petitioners carried out the burial of a deceased family member on 27 gunthas of survey no. 45, village Rupavati, Taluka Gariyadhar, District Bhavnagar. The Sarpanch issued a notice dated 29 June 2026 informing the petitioners that the burial had taken place near a Hindu crematorium situated in the village, and calling on them to explain the circumstances. The notice also warned that in the absence of a satisfactory explanation, the body would be exhumed after appropriate religious rituals and re-buried at the graveyard designated for the purpose. The Sarpanch added that the petitioners should not cause any law and order situation when that action was taken.

Separately, the Deputy Collector, Palitana had on 16 June 2026 rejected a representation filed by the petitioners and others seeking formal recognition of the 27-guntha plot as a Muslim graveyard.

Before the High Court, the petitioners sought quashing of both the notice and the Deputy Collector's order, a stay on their operation, a direction permitting Muslims of Rupavati village to use the 27 gunthas as a burial ground, and a restraint on any coercive action to exhume the body already buried there.

The Petitioners' Claim Over the 27-Guntha Plot

Advocate M.M. Kharadi, appearing for the petitioners, submitted that the land admeasuring 2.28 hectares at survey no. 45 had originally been allotted by the erstwhile Baroda Government for dual purposes: 2 acres 0.01 gunthas for a Hindu crematorium, and 0.27 gunthas for a Muslim graveyard. He stated that while the original revenue records mentioned both portions, at some point the reference to the graveyard had been removed, leaving the entire land recorded as assigned for the crematorium alone.

Counsel submitted that the burial in question was of a family member and was carried out within the 27 gunthas that had originally been earmarked for the Muslim community. He argued that the Sarpanch's notice was therefore illegal and that the Deputy Collector had committed a gross error in rejecting the representation, given that the land had previously been reflected as a Muslim graveyard in revenue records.

As for the existing community burial ground, the petitioners' counsel contended that it was now full, and it was on that account that the family had decided to use the disputed plot.

State's Opposition and Prior Exhumation in 2021–22

Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Aditya Pathak opposed the petition on multiple grounds. He pointed out that the petitioners had available remedies before appropriate authorities against the notice in question. He also drew the court's attention to an earlier episode: around 8 June 2022, the petitioners had buried another deceased family member at the same 27-guntha plot. Following orders passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Palitana, that body had been exhumed and re-buried in the community graveyard.

On the Deputy Collector's order of 16 June 2026, the AGP submitted that no error had been committed, as the Deputy Collector had merely asked the petitioners to approach through the Gram Panchayat.

To a direct query from the court, the AGP confirmed under instructions that there is a burial ground for persons of the Muslim community in Rupavati village itself, and that except for the petitioners, members of the Muslim community use that site for burying their deceased.

Site Visit Report and the Court's Findings

Considering the sensitivity of the issue and the factual dispute over the condition of the community burial ground, the court directed the AGP to have a site visit conducted by appropriate officers of the Revenue Department and the Panchayat Department, with a report to follow. Pursuant to those directions, a report dated 7 July 2026 was submitted by the Circle Officer (Rural), Gariyadhar and the Extension Officer, Panchayat, Taluka Panchayat, Gariyadhar.

The report stated that the Muslim community's burial ground is approximately 700 square metres in size, is fenced on all sides, and has a gate. Competent officers certified that roughly half of the land has been used for burial purposes, while the other half remains completely empty.

On those facts, the court rejected the petitioners' claim that the designated burial ground was full. Justice Kariel observed that when a burial ground earmarked for the Muslim community existed in the very same village and was still substantially available, “it was not open for the petitioners to have decided to have the deceased person of their family buried in the disputed 27 gunthas.”

The court acknowledged that hardship to a grieving family might have been a different matter if the designated graveyard had been at a far distance, but found that was not the position on the facts before it.

Prior Exhumation Order and Four-Year Gap Without Legal Challenge

The court gave weight to the 2021–22 episode. In that instance, the petitioners had buried a family member at the same 27-guntha plot, the SDM had ordered exhumation, and the body was re-interred at the community graveyard. The court observed that after that episode, the petitioners neither challenged the authorities' stand nor sought any clarity on the legal status of the 27-guntha plot for the next four years. Having chosen not to do so, they could not, after four years, unilaterally decide to use the same land again for burial.

Justice Kariel found no error on the part of the Sarpanch in issuing a notice calling upon the petitioners to produce appropriate documents showing the land was a burial ground, or in warning of exhumation. The stand taken by the petitioners regarding the 27 gunthas was described as “completely unjustified” in the circumstances.

Revenue Entry Question Left Open

At the hearing stage, Advocate Kharadi submitted that if the court was not interfering with the Sarpanch's notice, the petitioners themselves would carry out the exhumation and re-burial at the community site rather than have authorities do it. He also sought liberty for the petitioners to separately challenge the revenue entry by which the 27-guntha graveyard reference had been deleted from the records, arguing they retained an independent right to question that deletion.

The AGP opposed the grant of any such liberty. The court took a neutral course on that prayer: since the question of challenging the revenue entry was not the subject matter of the present petition, the court declined either to expressly grant or to refuse liberty. The court noted that appropriate authorities would be free to take a position on their own merits if and when the revenue entries were ever questioned.

Order

The petition was disposed of as rejected. The court recorded the statement of Advocate Kharadi that the petitioners would themselves carry out the exhumation of the body buried at survey no. 45, Rupavati village, Gariyadhar Taluka, District Bhavnagar, and re-inter it in the designated Muslim community graveyard — all within 10 days from 13 July 2026.

The court directed that if the petitioners failed to carry out the exhumation and re-burial within that period, the State or Panchayat authorities would be free to take appropriate steps after giving prior intimation to the petitioners.

In the event the authorities were required to carry out the exhumation, the court directed that it must be done after appropriate religious rituals and that the dignity of the deceased shall be maintained at all costs. That direction mirrored the assurance originally given in the Sarpanch's notice itself.