Karnataka High Court
Mr Manjunath Shastry vs State Of Karnataka on 12 February, 2025
Author: N S Sanjay Gowda
Bench: N S Sanjay Gowda
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:6300
WP No. 54380 of 2013
C/W WP No. 33431 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA
WRIT PETITION NO. 54380 OF 2013 (LB-BMP)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO. 33431 OF 2013 (LB-BMP)
IN W.P.No. 54380 OF 2013
BETWEEN:
1. MR MANJUNATH SHASTRY
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
SON OF MR Y C SEETHARAM SASTRY
RESIDING AT 109 D 5TH MAIN
5TH CROSS, SANJAYNAGAR
RMV 2ND STAGE
BANGALORE- 560094.
Digitally
signed by 2. MR GANESH RATNAM
KIRAN
KUMAR R
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
Location: SON OF LATE MR R RAMA RATNAM
HIGH
COURT OF RESIDING AT B3 206
KARNATAKA
WHITEHOUSE, 6TH MAIN
15TH CROSS, R T NAGAR
BANGALORE-560032
P-1 AND P-2 STANDS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED
VIDE ORDER DATED:22.02.2023
3. MS ANJU AGAST SRIVATS
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
D/O MR V K AGAST
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:6300
WP No. 54380 of 2013
C/W WP No. 33431 of 2013
FLAT NO. 303, JAKKUR PLANTATIONS
JAKKUR, BANGALORE
4. MR SHYAM KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
SON OF MR K BHASKARAN
RESIDING AT 169B,
JAKKUR PLANTATIONS
JAKKUR, YELHANKHA HOBLI
BANGALORE
P-4 STANDS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED
VIDE ORDER DATED:22.02.2023
5. MR R P GUNARANJAN
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
SON OF MR R V PRABHAKARA
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO.24
VASWANI ASHTON WOODS
KARIYAMMANA AGRAHARA
BELLANDUR POST,
BANGALORE-560103
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. P.S. RAJAGOPAL., SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. G.S.CHIDAMBARA.,ADVOCATE FOR R-3 & R-5;
(VIDE ORDER DATED:08.02.2023 IN SO FAR AS
PETITIONERS No.1, 2 AND 4 IS DISMISSED AS NOT
PRESSED))
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
VIKASA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE.
2. BHRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT
N R SQUARE,
BANGALORE-560002
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:6300
WP No. 54380 of 2013
C/W WP No. 33431 of 2013
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER
3. ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA
PALIKE, N R SQUARE,
BANGALORE-560002
4. THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR
(TOWN PLANNING)
BHRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA
PALIKE, HAVING ITS OFFICE
AT N.R.SQUARE,
BANGALORE-560002
5. THE KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
PARISARA BHAVANA,
NO. 49, 4TH AND 5TH FLOOR,
CHURCH STREET,
BENGALURU-560 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BYSRI. BOPANNA BELLIAPPA., AGA FOR R-1; SRI. B.S.SATHYANANDA., ADVOCATE FOR R-2 & R-4; SRO. MAHESH CHOWDARY., ADVOCATE FOR R-5) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-2 & 3 TO EITHER REMOVE OR SHIFT OR DEMOLISH THE CREMATORIUM WHICH IS BEING CONSTRUCTED IN SCHEDULE B PROPERTY, ETC. IN W.P.No.33431 OF 2013 BETWEEN:
1. SOBHA DEVELOPERS LTD A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT 1956, HAVING ITS REGISTERED CORPORATE OFFICE -4- NC: 2025:KHC:6300 WP No. 54380 of 2013 C/W WP No. 33431 of 2013 AT "SOBHA" SARJAPUR-MARATHAHALLI OUTER RING ROAD (ORR) DEVARABISANAHALLI, BELANDUR POST, BANGALORE-560103 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY MRS V PADMAVATHI ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. P.S.RAJAGOPAL SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI.KEMPEGOWDA., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001.
2. BHRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE HAVING ITS OFFICE AT N R SQUARE, BANGALORE-560002 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER
3. ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, N R SQUARE BANGALORE-560002
4. THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR (TOWN PLANNING) BHRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT N.R.SQUARE, BANGALORE-560002
5. KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD PARISARA BHAVANA, -5- NC: 2025:KHC:6300 WP No. 54380 of 2013 C/W WP No. 33431 of 2013 1ST TO 5TH FLOOR, NO. 49, CHURCH STREET, BENGALURU-560 001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. BOPANNA BELLIAPPA., AGA FOR R-1; SRI. B.S.SATHYANANDA., ADVOCATE FOR R-2 & R-4; SRO. MAHESH CHOWDARY., ADVOCATE FOR R-5) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-2 & R-3 TO EITHER REMOVE OR SHIFT THE CREAMATIORIUM WHICH IS BEING CONSTRUCTED IN SCH-B PROPERTY IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE KARNATAKA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ACT 1976 AS THE SAME POSES HEALTH HAZARDS AND ENDANGERS HUMAN LIFE TO THE RESIDIENTS OF SOBHA CITY AND NEARBY LOCALITY THEREBY VIOLATING THEIR FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO LIFE AND FURTHER FOR THE REASON THAT THE IMPUGNED ACTION ALSO CAUSES HUS\GE FINANCIAL LOSSES TO THE PETITIONER COMPANY AND DAMAGES ITS REPUTATION AND GOODWILL ESTABLISHED BY THE PETITIONER COMPANY OVER THE YEARS IN THE FILED OF REAL ESTATE AND CONSTRUCTION OF WORK, ETC.
THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 17.01.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:6300 WP No. 54380 of 2013 C/W WP No. 33431 of 2013 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA CAV ORDER
1. On 26.07.2013, Sobha Developers Limited filed W.P.No.33431/2013 seeking for a direction to respondents 2 and 3 to either remove or shift the crematorium which was being constructed in Sy.No.7/2 of Hegde Nagar, Thanisandra, as it contravenes the provisions of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (for brevity, "the Act") and poses health hazards to the residents of Sobha City.
2. Sobha City was a residential complex developed by the petitioner on the adjoining lands bearing Sy.Nos.62/2 and 62/3 situate at Chokkanahalli Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk and Sy.Nos.71/1 and 9/2 situate at Nagareshwara Nagenahalli Village, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk, which totally measured 36 acres 25 guntas -7- NC: 2025:KHC:6300 WP No. 54380 of 2013 C/W WP No. 33431 of 2013 (148214.77 sq. mtrs.). It was stated that in this residential complex, they had put up eight blocks of residential apartments/row houses totally amounting to 1,762 housing units.
3. About five months thereafter, on 29.11.2013, W.P.No.54380/2013 was preferred by five petitioners who were the purchasers of the apartment in the said residential complex called "Sobha City" seeking a similar direction to be issued to either remove or shift the crematorium that was being constructed in Sy.No.7/2 of Hegde Nagar, Thanisandra.
4. It is the case of the petitioners that they would be directly affected by the establishment of electric crematorium in the adjoining land, especially the residents of block numbers 1 and 2, which were situated exactly opposite to the proposed crematorium.
5. It may, however, be noticed here that the petitioners admit that there were existing graveyards of the -8- NC: 2025:KHC:6300 WP No. 54380 of 2013 C/W WP No. 33431 of 2013 Hindu, Christian and Muslim communities adjacent to their residential complex even before they were developed by the petitioner - Sobha Developers and before they had purchased the apartments (i.e., the petitioners in WP.No.54380/2013). In other words, the developer as well as apartment owners who had purchased the apartments, were aware of the fact that the residential complex was coming up abutting the land in which there were three graveyards of the Hindu, Christian and Muslim communities.
6. It is the contention advanced by the petitioners that the establishment of crematorium is in contravention of the Zoning of Land use and Regulations of the Revised Master Plan 2015 and also that the establishment of crematorium is not permissible under the National Building Code of India, 2005.
7. The petitioners also contended that the establishment of crematorium would pose a health hazard to the residents and the State Pollution -9- NC: 2025:KHC:6300 WP No. 54380 of 2013 C/W WP No. 33431 of 2013 Control Board had also supported their stand in this regard.
8. It is also contended by the petitioners that the petitioner - developer was prepared to undertake the cost of constructing new crematorium and there was also a proposal to shift the crematorium to an alternative location and in light of this offer, establishment of a crematorium at the existing place that was abutting the residential complex in question was unnecessary.
9. It is the case of the Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP), on the other hand, that the Zonal Regulations do permit the establishment of crematorium even in areas which are earmarked as residential zones. It is contended that since the Zonal Regulations permit the establishment of crematorium, the argument that the establishment of crematorium was illegal cannot be sustained. In the alternative, it is contended that the Zonal
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:6300 WP No. 54380 of 2013 C/W WP No. 33431 of 2013 Regulations also state that if the Government had accorded approval for establishment of crematorium, said permission would hold good for establishment of crematorium.
10. The BBMP also contends that there was indeed a proposal to shift the crematorium on the basis of representation made out by the petitioner - developer, but it has been found that the alternative land which was about 5 to 6 kms. away was already fully utilized and the same was unavailable.
11. The BBMP also states that after securing necessary approval both administrative and technical, they had already constructed a crematorium and installed the requisite machineries and only the commissioning of the same had been withheld and that was only because of these writ petitions.
12. In light of the above, the principal question which would have to be determined is:
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:6300 WP No. 54380 of 2013 C/W WP No. 33431 of 2013 Whether the crematorium can be established in an area which had been earmarked for residential purposes under the revised Master Plan?
13. It is the admitted case of both the parties that the apartment complex constructed by the petitioner - developer and in which, apartments have been purchased by some of the petitioners, is in an area earmarked for residential use under the revised Master Plan. It is also sought to be argued that the abutting land has also been earmarked for the residential use and therefore the crematorium cannot be established.
14. As already noticed above, it is the admitted case of the petitioners that as per Annexure-Q - sketch, abutting their property, there did exist graveyards of Hindu, Christian and Muslim communities. This would, therefore, indicate that the petitioner- developer developed the residential complex being
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:6300 WP No. 54380 of 2013 C/W WP No. 33431 of 2013 fully aware of the fact that its project would be neighbouring three graveyards.
15. The petitioner - developer states as follows in paragraph 19 of the writ petition filed by it:
"19. Petitioners submit that towards the southern side of the project Sobha City, exactly opposite to blocks 1 and 2 there are graveyards of Hindu, Christian and Muslim Communities which are situated in Survey Number 7/2 the same is also adjacent to Arkavaty Layout and CRPF Training Ground. When the Petitioner was carrying out the development of the Sobha City Project in full swing as per the Sanction Plans, to their shock they came to know from reliable sources that the 3rd Respondent is planning to construct and Electric Crematorium abutting to the Petitioners Property. The Petitioner being aggrieved by the fact that after spending huge amounts of money to construct the mini town ship project Sobha City with a laudable object of offering quality housing units to general public are now faced with a awkward situation wherein, if the crematorium is constructed in the said property, the environment of the
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:6300 WP No. 54380 of 2013 C/W WP No. 33431 of 2013 locality in and around Sobha City would be adversely affected from the toxic emissions emerging from the crematorium due to burning of corpses. Hence, immediately on 30.07.2012, the Petitioner gave a representation to the 2nd Respondent and requested to drop the said proposal and consider moving the crematorium to an alternative location. A copy of the Representation dated 30.07.2012 submitted to 2nd Respondent is produced herewith and marked as Annexure-'P'."
16. The petitioners - purchasers of apartments states as follows in paragraph 10 of the writ petition filed by them:
"10. Petitioners submit that towards the southern side of the project Sobha City, exactly opposite to blocks 1 and 2 there are graveyards of Hindu, Christian and Muslim Communities which are situated in Survey Number 7/2, the same is also adjacent to Arkavaty Layout and Police Training Ground. Petitioners came to know that 3rd respondent was planning to construct a crematorium next to the project being undertaken by Sobha Developers at a
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:6300 WP No. 54380 of 2013 C/W WP No. 33431 of 2013 stage when Sobha Developers Ltd was carrying out the development of the Sobha City Project in full swing as per the approved sanction plans. Petitioners being the apartment purchasers in the said project was completely shocked and disturbed to hear these developments as they were forced to confront a situation where they, after spending huge amounts of money for purchasing apartment in Sobha City, had to live in conditions where toxic emissions emerging from the crematoria would become hazardous and injurious to their health."
17. It is, however, the case of the petitioners that the entire area is reserved for residential use and hence, establishment of crematorium would be illegal. For the purposes of this case, this argument is accepted as being factually correct and the matter is considered.
18. Learned counsel for the BBMP Sri B.S.Sathyananda submits that Zonal Regulation do permit the lands, which have been earmarked for residential use, to be used for setting up a crematorium.
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:6300 WP No. 54380 of 2013 C/W WP No. 33431 of 2013
19. He highlights the fact that Chapter 4.1 of Zonal Regulations deals with Residential (Main) and Clause 4.1.2 (i) indicates the permissible land uses therein. He states that the Main land use would be R and T1 i.e., Residential and Transportation Zone and the ancillary land use in areas reserved for residential use would be C2 (Commercial Tutorial centres not exceeding 50 sq mtr), I-2 (Industrial Uses i.e., Service Industries) and U3 (Public and Semi Public uses).
20. He stated that Table "6" of the Zonal Regulations illustrates the permissible land uses in public and semi public category which are classified as U1, U2, U3, U4 and the permissible uses under category U3 would be all the uses under Category U1 and U2 and U2 permitted the area to be used for Burial grounds, crematorium under special circumstances. The tabular column insofar as U3 reads as follows:
U3 Urban amenities
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:6300
WP No. 54380 of 2013
C/W WP No. 33431 of 2013
1 All uses of U1 and U2 are
permissible
2 Higher primary schools,
Integrated Residential
Schools
3 Health centers and
Hospital.
4 Research institutions
subject to the size
5 Government buildings,
auditoriums, cultural
complexes,
6 Education Institutions,
College
21. As could be noticed from the above, U3 permits use of both U1 and U2. Thus, the uses permissible under U2 would also have to be seen. The said table insofar as it relates to U2 reads as under:
U2 Urban amenities
1 All uses of U 1 are
permissible.
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:6300
WP No. 54380 of 2013
C/W WP No. 33431 of 2013
2 Burial grounds,
crematorium under special
circumstances.
3 Nursery school subject to a
plot size of min 300 sq.m
22. Therefore, from the above, it is clear that even in respect of an area which is earmarked for residential land use, a crematorium can be established since it is one of the ancillary uses permissible.
23. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, however, submits that U2 permits the use of the land for establishing crematorium or burial ground only under special circumstances and hence this argument would be untenable.
24. As already noticed above, even prior to the revised Master Plan, it is the admitted case of all the parties that there existed a graveyard of three communities.
25. It cannot be in dispute that the land use prevailing as on the date the revised Master Plan came into force
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:6300 WP No. 54380 of 2013 C/W WP No. 33431 of 2013 would continue to subsist, even if the revised Master Plan changed the land use to a different use. To put it differently, before the revised Master Plan comes into force, if a land is earmarked for a residential purpose and in the revised plan, the same had been designated for a commercial purpose, the residential dwelling which had come up earlier would be legal and valid.
26. In the context of this case, since the lands in question were being used as a graveyard, that use would prevail and be legally valid, even if the revised master plan earmarked it for residential purposes.
27. It may also be pertinent to state here that General Notes of the Zonal Regulations, particularly, Regulation 3.16 sub-clause (i)1 clearly states that all permissions accorded by the BDA or the Government shall be treated as conforming uses irrespective of 1 i. All permissions accorded by BDA or Government shall be treated as conforming uses irrespective of the classification made in the Revised Master Plan 2015. This is to be allowed on a case by case basis only.
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:6300 WP No. 54380 of 2013 C/W WP No. 33431 of 2013 their classification made in the revised Master Plan, 2015 and this was to be allowed on a case to case basis only.
28. Learned counsel appearing for BBMP points out that the Government had accepted the proposal of the Standing Committee to establish a crematorium and had accorded its approval for establishing the same under its order dated 18.07.2008, a copy of which is produced at Annexure-R2 to the statement of objections filed in W.P.No.33431/2013. It is therefore clear that this administrative approval granted for establishing a crematorium by the Government would clearly permit the establishment of crematorium.
29. The argument of learned Senior Counsel Sri P.S.Rajagopal appearing for the petitioners that the approval of the Government is only an administrative approval and cannot be related to the
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC:6300 WP No. 54380 of 2013 C/W WP No. 33431 of 2013 approval contemplated under Regulation 3.16 of the Zonal Regulations cannot be accepted.
30. Firstly, because as already observed there was already three existing graveyards and in one of the graveyards, the Government was considering establishment of an electric crematorium. Thus, the Government was aware that the crematorium was to be set up in the existing graveyard and hence this permission will have to be construed as a permission as contemplated under Regulation 3.16.
31. Secondly, the Government is deemed to be aware of the fact that it was considering the proposal to establish a crematorium in a residential area of the City and whenever it grants such permission, it is obvious that the permission would also be relatable to the permissions contemplated under Regulation 3.16 sub-clause (i).
32. Learned counsel for the BBMP is therefore justified in contending that the establishment of crematorium
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC:6300 WP No. 54380 of 2013 C/W WP No. 33431 of 2013 even in a residential area is legal and valid, more so, when the Government had granted permission for setting up the crematorium.
33. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, however, seeks to contend that the National Building Code issued by the Government of India categorically stated that a crematorium should not be permitted to be established in the proximity of a residential area.
34. It is to be stated here that the aforementioned document that is relied upon are only guidelines which provide the framework for plan preparations and for implementation process and the same would have no statutory force. It is to be noticed here that the Zonal Regulations which are framed as a part of the development plan does have statutory force and if these Regulations permit the establishment of a crematorium in a residential area, these would prevail as against guidelines.
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC:6300 WP No. 54380 of 2013 C/W WP No. 33431 of 2013
35. The other argument of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners that establishment of a crematorium would pose a health hazard to the residents of residential locality cannot also be accepted.
36. During the pendency of these writ petitions, taking note of the contention that the Pollution Control Board had objected to the establishment of crematorium, this Court directed the impleadment of Pollution Control Board as an additional respondent.
37. Learned counsel Sri Mahesh Chowdary appearing for the Pollution Control Board candidly submitted that the crematorium is not classified as an "industry" and there is no requirement for obtaining a consent for establishment.
38. He also contended that there are no criteria or guidelines or standards prescribed for the Pollution Control Board to adopt in relation to regulate or
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC:6300 WP No. 54380 of 2013 C/W WP No. 33431 of 2013 control the pollution, if any, caused by the electric crematorium.
39. He was also directed by this Court to file an affidavit in this regard and accordingly, after the matter was reserved, he has filed an affidavit in which it has been reiterated that there are no guidelines prescribing the manner in which the running of a crematorium are to be regulated. The relevant paragraphs reads as under:
"3. I submit that, as of today there are no guidelines or standards or mechanisms which local bodies could adopt to regulate pollution control if any caused in crematoria, which are running either through electricity or LPG or fuel. The guidelines are to be framed and formulated by Central Pollution Control Board and the MOEF & CC.
4. I submit that, the following preventive measures can be adopted by local bodies who operate crematoria for monitoring the pollution levels caused by their operations
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC:6300 WP No. 54380 of 2013 C/W WP No. 33431 of 2013 either through electricity or LPG or any other fuel source in Bengaluru:
i. Every crematoria shall install venturi scrubber as air pollution control measure to mitigate smell and particulate emission followed by stack or chimney of 30Mtrs with proper port hole and platform above ground level. ii. Crematoria area shall be kept clean with more greenery all around the premises at least five rows of plantations all around the premises. iii. Minimum furnace temperature (850 °C) shall be maintained between 850 °C 1000 °C to attain complete process of burning during cremation process.
iv. Avoid use of PVC, metals and chlorinated compounds in the electric chamber.
v. Organic waste generated within the premises shall either be composted within the premises or to be sentto local body Municipal Solid Waste management site.
- 25 -
NC: 2025:KHC:6300 WP No. 54380 of 2013 C/W WP No. 33431 of 2013 vi. In case of wood fire burnings if prevails in crematoria area, the authorities shall install the air pollution control measures with proper wood and duct and proper suction system provided in series followed by venturi scrubber and chimney of height minimum 30mtrs above ground level with port hole & platform.
vii. It is mandatory on the part of local
body to carry out air pollution
monitoring of all outlets and
document the same.
5. I submit that, if these measures are
implemented along with regular and periodical monitoring, pollution if any, caused from crematoria can be controlled and reduced."
40. It is therefore clear that in light of this affidavit, the earlier stand of the Pollution Control Board, which is sought to be relied upon by the petitioners, would be improper. In fact, this affidavit would go directly against the assertions made in the communications
- 26 -
NC: 2025:KHC:6300 WP No. 54380 of 2013 C/W WP No. 33431 of 2013 which are relied upon by the petitioners. In my view, in light of this affidavit, the earlier communication of the Pollution Control Board on which strong reliance was placed, would be untenable. In fact, the Pollution Control Board ought to have been more circumspect before it had issued the communication, which gave rise to a strong opinion amongst the petitioners that there was indeed pollution being caused by establishment of crematorium.
41. In light of this statement by the counsel appearing for the Pollution Control Board that establishment of a crematorium does not require permission of the Pollution Control Board, the argument of the petitioners in this regard cannot be accepted.
42. It may be pertinent to state here that in a fast developing city like Bengaluru, establishing a crematorium would be an essential requirement of critical importance. If a crematorium cannot be established in the City, there would be huge problem
- 27 -
NC: 2025:KHC:6300 WP No. 54380 of 2013 C/W WP No. 33431 of 2013 in disposal of the dead. Given the huge spurt in the population, the authorities are bound to find an area in which these crematoriums can be established. In fact, judicial notice can be taken that almost all the electric crematoriums that are established in Bengaluru have been established within the existing burial grounds, ostensibly because those places are already being used for burying of the dead and there can be no objection for establishing an electric crematorium in such places.
43. The last contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that there is an alternative land available and since the petitioner - developer was prepared to meet the cost of constructing a crematorium, the crematorium should be shifted to an alternative location cannot also be accepted.
44. It is no doubt true that the BBMP did entertain a request of the petitioner - developer to establish a crematorium in another land bearing Sy.No.99.
- 28 -
NC: 2025:KHC:6300 WP No. 54380 of 2013 C/W WP No. 33431 of 2013 However, learned counsel for the BBMP has placed on record documents which indicate that said alternative land is unavailable and has been fully utilized. He also submits that this crematorium is about 5 to 6 kms away from the existing crematorium.
45. It is also to be noticed here that the BBMP has already constructed a crematorium and installed machineries way back in the year 2013 and to now call upon the BBMP to dismantle them would be an utter waste of public money.
46. In my view, the filing of the petition by the petitioner
- developer, who chose to construct a huge residential complex spreading over an area of nearly 36 acres knowing fully well that their land was abutting graveyards of three communities, would disentitle the developer from contending that establishment of a crematorium in one of those graveyards would harm the interest of the residents
- 29 -
NC: 2025:KHC:6300 WP No. 54380 of 2013 C/W WP No. 33431 of 2013 of apartment complex that the developer has constructed. When the developer was clearly aware of the existence of the graveyards abutting the residential complex and knowingly undertook the venture of constructing a residential complex abutting the graveyards, it is estopped from contending that a crematorium cannot be established in the graveyards.
47. I am therefore of the view that there is no merit in the contentions advanced by the petitioners. The writ petitions are therefore dismissed.
48. As the Pollution Control Board has now come up with the guidelines in the form of an affidavit which, if followed, would regulate or reduce the pollution, if any, caused by the establishment of crematorium, it would be appropriate to direct the BBMP to ensure that the guidelines stipulated by the Pollution Control Board are strictly adhered to.
- 30 -
NC: 2025:KHC:6300 WP No. 54380 of 2013 C/W WP No. 33431 of 2013
49. It is noticed that the Pollution Control Board has also stated that in respect of cremations through wood fire burnings, the authorities are required to install the air pollution control measures with proper wood duct and proper suction system in the manner stated therein. In this view of the matter, it would be essential for the BBMP to ensure that this method is scrupulously followed wherever cremation is being conducted through burning of the dead by using wood.
50. The BBMP shall file a report of compliance/affidavit about the implementation of the measures suggested by the Pollution Control Board within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and for this purpose, though the matter is disposed off, the same would be listed on 06.06.2025.
51. A copy of this order shall also be furnished to the Principal Secretary of the Municipal Department and
- 31 -
NC: 2025:KHC:6300 WP No. 54380 of 2013 C/W WP No. 33431 of 2013 the Urban Development Department, who shall in turn, issue a Circular to all the local bodies to adhere to the guidelines prescribed by the Pollution Control Board referred to above, wherever electric crematoriums are established or wherever the dead bodies are disposed off by burning them using wood.
Sd/-
(N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE PKS List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1