NAGAIAH Vs. P A KALIYAPPAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant herein was the third respondent in W, P. 287 of 1979 against which the present writ appeal has been preferred. The first respondent herein filed the writ petition for the issue of a writ of certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records in B. P. Rt. No. 5207 (L) dated 26-10-78 of the Board of Revenue and in D. Dis No. 106894 dated 10-8-1978. of the Collector of Ramanathapuram and for quashing the same and for directing the authorities to grant a no-objection certificate to the first respondent herein in respect of S. No, 17611 and 2 of Nilamalagiamangalam village, Tiruvadanai Taluk. Ramanathapuram district.

(2.) The short facts of the case are The first respondent herein applied to the Collector of Ramanathapuram at Madurai on 11th May 1978, for issue of a no-objection certificate to him for locating a touring cinema in the site mentioned by him. The appellant filed an application before the Collector for issue of a no-objection certificate to him to locate a touring cinema at Adulthakudi village, Tiruvadanai taluk. The two villages are adjacent to each other. Inasmuch as the first respondent herein did not produce the registered lease deed in respect of the land of which he was a lessee and in respect of which he wanted a no-objection certificate, the Collector returned his application. The first respondent re-presented the application with the registered lease deed on 24th May 1978. As the law then stood, the lands in respect of which the appellant and the first respondent applied for a no-objection certificate were within prohibited distance. Hence the Collector of Ramanathapuram, granted a no-objection certificate to the appellant herein, holding that the appellant's application was prior in Point of time, since the first respondent's application filed on 11th May 1978 was defective for want of production of the registered lease deed and the subsequent filing of a proper application by him was only on 24th May 1978. Aggrieved by the order of the Collector, the first respondent herein preferred an appeal to the Board of Revenue challenging the grant of a no-objection certificate in favour of the appellant herein. Another appeal was also filed by the first respondent against the rejection of his application for grant of a no-objection certificate. The Board of Revenue, following the reasoning given by the Collector, dismissed both the appeals on 26-10-1978. Therefore, the first respondent filed W, P. 287 of 1979 praying for the above said reliefs.

(3.) V. Ramaswami J. while disposing of the said writ petition, observed that in a case where there is no dispute between the owner and the lessee and where it is admitted that the applicant is in possession in pursuance of a lease agreement between the owner and the applicant, even an, unregistered lease deed can be relied on to show that he is in lawful possession. For this view, the learned Judge referred to R. 13 of the Tamil Nadu Cinemas (Regulation) Rules 1957, and the said Rule requires the applicant to satisfy the licensing authority by production of documentary evidence showing that he is in lawful possession of the site. According to the learned Judge the first respondent herein. has satisfied the Collector with regard to his lawful possession by producing unregistered lease deed, and, so, the date of his application must be taken as 11th May 1978: if so, the Collector has erred in taking the date of re-presentation of the application, which was on 24th May 1978, as the date of the filing of the application by the first respondent. Due to this error committed, according to the learned Judge, the first respondent's application was wrongly rejected and a no-objection certificate was wrongly granted to the appellant herein. Finally, the learned Judge allowed the writ petition, setting aside that part of the orders of the Collector and the Board refusing. to grant a no-objection certificate to the first respondent. Nevertheless, the learned Judge recorded the consent given by the appellant herein before him and observed - "The Collector is directed, as agreed to by the first respondent, to cancel the licence in favour of the third respondent (appellant herein), simultaneously with the grant of the 'C' form licence to the petitioner (first respondent herein), so that R. 14 (2) will not be violated."