K. RAMADAS SHENOY versus THE CHIEF OFFICERS, TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, UDIPI AND ORS.

Citation: [1975] 1 S.C.R. 680 · Decided: 09-08-1974 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.N. RAY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 5 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

680 
K. RAMADAS SHENOY 
v. 
THE CHIEF OFFICERS, TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, 
UDIPI AND ORS. 
August 9, 1974 
[A. N. RAY C.J. AND K. K. MATHEW, J.j 
Madras Town Planning Act, 1920-Cinema built in a residential area-Excess 
of statutory power if could be validated by acquiescence or by operation of esroppel. 
The respondent was granted a licence for the construction of Kalyan Mantap .. 
cum-Lecture HalI within the limits of the rnunicipaHty, subject to the provisions of the 
Madras Public Health Act, 1939 and the Scheme framed under the Madras Town 
Planning Act, 1920. The Municipal Committee, by a resolution, approved the 
plan for conversion of Kalyan Mantap-cum-Lecture Hall into a cinema theatre. In 
a petition under article 22 6 of the Constitution the High Court held that the cinema 
theatre could not be constructed in a place other than the specified localities 
\Vithout proper sanction, but since the third respondent had spent a large sum of 
money, it did not quash the impeached resolution. 
On appeal to this Court the appellant contended that the Town Planning Scheme 
forbade any cinema building at the place asked for and, therefore, the resolution 
was invalid. 
A owing the appeal, 
HELD : (I) Tho resolution of the municipality had no legal foundation. The 
illegal construction of a cinema building materially affects the right t_o or enjoy .. 
ment of the property by persons residing in the residential area. The municipal 
authorities owe a duty and obligation under the statute to see that the residential 
area is not spoiled by unauthorised construction. A scheme in the residential area 
means planned orderliness in accordance with the requirements of the residents. 
[685H; 686E] 
(2) The H.igh .court was not correct in holding that though the impeached re· 
solution was in violation of the Town Planrung Scheme, yet it could not be disturb .. 
. ed because the third respondent was likely to have spent money. The excess of 
statutory power could not be validated by acquiescence in or by the operation of 
estoppel. The Court declines to interfere for the assistance of persons who seek 
its aid to relieve them against express statutory provisions. [6860] 
Maddison' V. Alderson [1883] 8 App. Cases 467, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDIOTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 2232 of 1973. 
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment & Order dated the 
22nd September, 1972 of the Mysore High Court in W. P. No. 834 of 
1972. 
S. V. Gupte with K. N. Bhatt and B. Krishna Rao, for the appellant. 
D. V. Patel, R. B. Datar and G. N. Rao, for the respondent No. 3, 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
RAY, C. J. This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment 
dated 22 September, 1972 of the High Court of Mysore. 
Vidya Varidhi Thirtha Swamiar of Shri Kaniyoor Muth, Udipi 
is the third resp<mdent. In 1968 he made an application to the Muni-
cipal Council, Udipi for construction of Kalyana Mantap-cum-Lecture 
A 
B 
• 
• 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
\. 
H 
A 
• 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
• 
H 
K. R, SHENOY v. MUN!C. COUNCIL (Ray, C.J,) 
681 
Hall. Licence was granted on 8 April, 1969 for the construction of 
Kalyana Mantap-cum-Lecture Hall. The two main conditions of the 
above licence were that the building to be put up was to be a Kalyan 
Mantap and the construction was subject to the provisions of Madras 
Public Health Act, 1939 and the Scheme framed under the Madras 
Town Planning Act, 1920 . 
On 20 March, 1970 there was an application under Madras Place 
of Public Resorts Act, 1888 for using the building as a public resort. 
The third respondent made an application on 23 March, 1970 under 
the Madras Place of Public Resorts Act 1888, to the Chief Officer, Town 
Municipal Council for licence to use the building for exhibition of 
cinematographic films for public entertainment. The third respondent 
also applied under section 256 of the Mysore Municipalities Act to 
instal generators with oil engines. 
On 8 April, 1970 the third respondent applied to the Chief Officer, 
Town Municipal Council to extend the period oflicence dated 8 April, 
1969 and for permission to convert the building into one for exhibition 
of films. 
On 18 April, 1970 the first respondent rejected the application on 
the ground that a cinema theatre could not be permitted under the 
provisions of the Town Planning Scheme in force. On 29 April, 1970 
the application for conversion of Kalyana Mantap-cum-Lecture Hall 
into a cinema theatre was rejected by the first respondent.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.