IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16893 of 2011 Raj Kumar Kedia, son of Late Baidya Nath Kedia, Mohalla Henri Bazar, PS and Town Motihari, Dist. East Champaran – Petitioner. Vs. 1) The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Urban Dev. Department, Bihar, Patna. 2) The Dist. Magistrate, East Champaran at Motihari. 3) The Chairman, Motihari Municipality, now as Nagar Parishad, Motihari, Dist. East Champaran. 4) The Motihari Municipality cum Nagar Parishad through the Executive Officer, Motihari. 5) The Circle Officer, Motihari, East Champaran. 6) The Executive Officer, Motihari, Nagar Parishad, Motihari, East Champaran – Respondents. 2 23.9.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner vide Annexure 1 has brought to the notice of this court the extract of the proceedings by which plot no. 1753, situate in Henri Bazar was auction sold to the petitioner on 14.9.1956 for a period of ninety nine years. The Circle Officer, Motihari in the year 1996 has stated a encroachment proceeding against the petitioner which was challenged by the petitioner in CWJC No. 9023/1996, which was disposed of by order, dated 19.4.1996. While doing so the court has also observed that “it is made clear that if the land is settled with the petitioner by the Municipality for the period of 99 years, the said settlement shall not be disturbed.” Despite the aforesaid order of the court the Executive Officer, Nagar Parishad, Motihari has issued a notice to the petitioner that he should stop construction on the piece of land described aforesaid. In the said notice the Executive Officer accepts that the petitioner’s father was the settlee of the land in 2 question. By annexure 6 it has further been directed that the petitioner should appear before the concerned authority within twenty four hours. Subsequently on 29.11.2010 the second notice has been issued to the petitioner asking him to submit his documents within twenty four hours. It has further been pointed out at annexure 8 that since the petitioner has not renewed his settlement, he should present himself before the Executive Officer within twenty four hours. The petitioner submitted the documents on the same day i.e. 29.11.2010. This court is surprised that the Executive Officer of the Nagar Parishad should be under any impression that after the death of the original settles i.e. the father of the petitioner, the petitioner was required to renew the settlement. This concept is unknown to law. It may be clarified that the petitioner and his other brothers would automatically step into the shoes of their father on his death. If the settlement was for a shorter period of time and had expired, then it would be incumbent upon the heirs, if the original settle was not alive, to get an order of resettlement. This court is not issuing notice to the Nagar Parishad but is disposing of this writ petition with the observation aforesaid, and with a direction that the petitioner must satisfy the Executive Officer that his father was a valid settlee of the land in question. The Executive Officer shall examine this aspect of the matter and pass orders accordingly. The petitioner is directed to produce a copy of this 3 order and other documents before the respondent Executive Officer, Nagar Parishad, Motihari who is directed to dispose of the matter within four months. haque ( Sheema Ali Khan, J .)