IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.304 of 2009 SRI THAKUR PRASAD, Son of late Sri Baidyanath Prasad, Resident of Mohalla- Kalibagh, Bettiah, Post Office/Police Station Bettiah, Disttrict –West Champaran. ……………Appellant/Appellant/Plaintiff Versus COMMISSIONER OF BETTIAH Municipality through the Executive Officer, Bettiah Municipality at Post Office/Police Station Bettiah, District-West Champaran. ……..Respondent /Respondent/Defendant. For the Appellant: Mr.Shiv Kumar .Dwivedi, Advocate ----------- 3 21.09.2010 Heard learned counsel for the appellant. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 28.02.2009 and 21.03.2009, respectively, passed by the Additional District Judge, F.T.C.-III, Bettiah West Champaran in Title Appeal No. 8 of 1997, whereby the apapeal has dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 22.01.1997 and 17.02.1997, respectively, passed by the 3rd Additional Munsif, Bettiah, West Champaran in Title Suit No. 116 of 1988 has been affirmed. The plaintiff-appellant had brought Title Suit No.116 of 1988 for declaration that he is the settlee /bona fide lessee of the shop as described in Schedule I of the plaint and the Commissioner-cum Executive Officer of the Bettiah Municipality should be permanently restrained from settling the aforesaid property in favour of other persons. 2 Case of the plaintiff, in short, is that vide Notification No. 2035 dated 05.04.1982 the concerned Municipality was superseded and by another Notification No. 2036 dated 05.04.1982, one Md. Kamaruzama, who was the Executive Officer of the superseded Municipality, had been appointed as Special Officer and, thus, the entire power of the Board was vested in him. The aforesaid notification of the Government was challenged in CWJC No. 1744 of 1982 and this Court vide order dated 19.05.1982 has stayed the supersession, however, the Commissioner did not reinstate the Board of Directors and the Special Officer continued to work even thereafter. Subsequently, the aforesaid writ petition was withdrawn on 09.12.1982, however, the Special Officer continued to work till 21.09.1983. The plaintiff had applied for settlement of the concerned land before the Special Officer and he had allowed the same by settling the land in his favour for the construction of shop on the terms and conditions described in agreement dated 26.02.1983. Thereafter, as has been claimed, the plaintiff remained in possession. However, suddenly the defendant Executive Officer started constructing four pucca shops ignoring the objection raised by the plaintiff, and, thus, has breached the 3 contract compelling the plaintiff to file the present suit . Both the courts have come to the conclusion that by Notification No. 2035 dated 05.04.1982 the concerned Municipality was superseded only for a period of six months and Special Officer was appointed vide Notification No. 2036 dated 05.04.1982, however, the aforesaid notification was stayed by this Court vide order dated 19.05.1982 in CWJC No. 1744 of 1982. Subsequently, the writ petition was withdrawn in December 1982 as the period of six months had already expired. Both the courts have come to the conclusion that for appointment having been made for six months and the same having been stayed by this Court, as discussed above, the Special Officer was not competent to execute any agreement or deed for settlement either before or after the period of the notification. The concerned settlement having been made by the concerned Special Officer in the month of February, 1983, i.e after expiry of period of notification of supersession, the Special Officer was not competent for entering into an agreement with any person. Thus, it has been held that the agreement of settlement made in favour of the plaintiff by an incompetent officer would be of no legal value, and, thus, the suit and the appeal have been dismissed. 4 Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that in the concerned notification dated 05.04.1982, it is not only stated that it is valid for six months, rather it is stated that it would be valid either for six months or till the first meeting of the Board of Directors on its coming in existence after next election having been held, whichever is earlier. However, even in view of the above, though the next election could not be held on the date of agreement the expiry of the term of six months was definitively earlier, thus, the said notification cannot be held to be in existence even after expiry of the aforesaid period of six months. I, therefore, do not find any error in the findings recorded by both the courts below holding that the Special Officer was not competent to execute the document. As a result, as the appellant could not point out any error committed by the courts below leading to any substantial question of law, this appeal, being devoid of any merit, is dismissed. SC ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)