Parasatti Ammal vs Kuppuswami Iyengar and Another

Rajagopalan, J.—The first Respondent obtained a lease of survey No. 324|4 in Kummangalam village, and he applied to the Collector of

Chingleput for the issue of a ''no-objection certificate'' to locate a touring cinema in that plot. That was granted on 21st October 1959. He

followed it up by applying for a C-Licence for the cinema located in that site. The C-Licence was granted on 16th January 1960, overruling the

objections of the Petitioner. The Petitioner''s lands adjoined survey No. 324|4 on three sides. It is enough to note that one of those fields was

survey No. 324|1, which belonged to the Petitioner and which lay to the west of survey No. 324|4.

The Petitioner applied under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of certiorari to set aside the order of the Collector, dated 16th

January 1960, under which a C-Licence was granted to the first Respondent.

The contention of the Petitioner was that the grant of the C-Licence to the first Respondent for the touring cinema in survey No. 324|4

contravened the provisions of Rule 101(1) of the rules framed under Madras Act IX of 1955. Rule 101(1) runs:

The building shall be provided on all its sides with an open space, which no part thereof shall be less than twenty yards in width.

Note.-The open space of twenty yards may comprise not only of the land of the licensee within the fence, but also the open space outside the

fence, if any, whether it belongs to the licensee or not, provided that it is open for the public to use the land without obstruction.

The factual position has been set out in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Government. There, it was pointed out that, at the south-

western corner, the shed that the first Respondent constructed to house the cinema was only thirty-seven feet from survey No. 324|1. At the time

of the grant of the no-objection certificate, survey No. 324|1 was vacant land. Subsequent to the grant of the no-objection certificate and,

apparently, at some point of time before the C-Licence was granted, the Petitioner planted some casuarina seedlings, encroaching twenty feet into

survey No. 324/4, with the result that, at the southeastern corner, there was only seventeen feet of clear ground between the cinema shed and the

casuarina posts and casuarina seedlings which the Petitioner had planted, partly in survey No. 324|1 and partly in survey No. 324|4.

It is with reference to these facts that I have got to decide whether the grant of C-licence, contravened the requirements of Rule 101(1).

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that it was clear that, on the date when the C-Licence was granted, even ignoring the encroachment

made by the Petitioner in survey No. 324|4, there was only thirty-seven feet of vacant land available in survey No. 324|4. The further submission

of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner was that survey No. 324|1 belonged to the Petitioner, which the public had no right to use, and that the

Petitioner had all along been objecting to any use of her land by the public. The acceptance of the contention of the learned Counsel for the

Petitioner requires some words being read into the note appended to Rule 101(1). Learned Counsel requires me to read it ''Provided that it is

open for the public to use as of right the land without obstruction ''. Considering the scheme of Rule 101(1) and also the object underlying that rule,

I see no justification for reading those extra words into the statutory rule. The requirement of vacant space of twenty yards all around a cinema is a

measure of safety in times of emergency like fire. The rule itself contemplates that the vacant land may belong to the licensee or to others. In a time

of emergency like that, no question of right to use either the land of the licensee or the adjacent land belonging to others was apparently

contemplated or provided for in the rules. The requirement of the rule would be satisfied if actually the land around the shed was vacant, so that, if

necessity arose, people could escape into that vacant land from the shed without any real obstruction. If, for instance, there had been a building

within sixty feet of a shed, obviously, that would prove an obstruction which would prevent the public or any member of the public from using that

land, quite independent of any question of a right to use that. It is under these circumstances I am unable to read into the note the further words

�as of right�, qualifying the words �used by the public�.

As far as this case is concerned, the position was that, on the date when ''no-objection certificate'' was granted, there was vacant land all around

Survey No. 324|4 exceeding twenty yards, though part of it lay also in survey No. 324|1, which did not belong to the licensee. Even at the time of

the grant of the C-Licence, what the Petitioner did, did not make it any the less effectively available for use as vacant land without any obstruction.

The Collector was, therefore, justified in coming to the conclusion that the requirements of Rule 101(1) were not violated by the conditions

prevailing at the time when even the C-Licence was granted.

Besides, it should be remembered that it is substantial compliance of the rules that is necessary.

The rule nisi is discharged, and the petition is dismissed.