Srinagar, Oct 27 (KNS): In a significant decision, a local court here has held there is no absolute right of burial to the exclusion of others in a graveyard which is recorded to be in possession of Ahl-i-Islam in revenue records.
The Court of Munsiff/Sub Registrar Srinagar presided by Touseef Ahmad Magray held this while disposing off a 13-year old case filed in 2009 wherein the parties were at dispute with regard to rights of burial of their dead in graveyard situated at Gasoo, Hazratbal in Srinagar.
The plaintiffs, residents of Gasso, had alleged that they had absolute right of burial in the graveyard to the exclusion of other side (defendants) who were residents of Village Homehair, Srinagar.
The Court after hearing both the sides and quoting from various works of scholars of Muslim Law and judgments of Supreme Court and High Courts held that “Under the Mahomedan Law, graveyard may be of two kinds; a family or private graveyard and a public graveyard. A graveyard is a private one which is confined only to the burial of corpses of the founder, his relations or his descendants.”
“In such a burial ground, no person who does not belong to the family of the founder is permitted to bury the dead. On the other hand, if any member of the public is permitted to be buried in a graveyard and this practice grows, so that it is proved by instances, adequate in character, number and extent, then the presumption will be that the dedication is complete and the graveyard has become a public graveyard where Mahomedan public will have the right to bury their dead. It is also well settled that a conclusive proof of the public graveyard is the description of the burial ground in the revenue records as a public graveyard,” the court observed.
While giving the judgment, the Court held that since the graveyard at Gasoo in question is under the possession of Ahl-i-Islam which would mean that the followers of Islam have a right to bury their dead in it and already dead of different localities are buried in it, the graveyard in question is a public graveyard.
“The plaintiffs have failed to show that they have exclusive right of burial over this graveyard to the exclusion of others and it is a private one,” the court observed.
By this judgment a 13-year old dispute was closed which had led to various instances of agitation between the both sides at the time of burial of their deads in the said graveyard,” the court observed. (KNS)