KAMAKHYA NARAYAN SINGH Vs. CHAIRMAN, HAZARIBAGH MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal can be disposed of on one short ground, but I propose to deal with both the points which have, been raised. The first point arises by reason of Section 12, Bihar and Orissa Municipal Act of 1922, which provides: There shall be established for each Municipality a body of Commissioners, who shall be a body corporate by the name of the Municipal Commissioners of the place by reference to which the Municipality is known, having perpetual succession and a common seal, and may by that name sue and be sued.

(2.) The use of the word "may" must be construed in the sense that they shall by that name sue and be sued, and by no other. In this case, as is very common in this Province, the party suing is the Chairman of the Municipality, a position although recognized by the Municipal Act is not a legal entity nor a Corporation sole and therefore he is not entitled to sue. The action in the present form is therefore not maintainable. The sooner the Municipalities of this Province realize this position the better. Two cases have failed owing to this form being used in actions either by the Municipality or against them.

(3.) The other point for consideration is whether in the circumstances the Raj was estopped from denying that the Municipal Commissioners were their landlords. It appears that about 1400 bighas of land was granted by the Raj in 1864 for the purpose of building the town of Hazaribagh or extending it--the exact purpose it is unnecessary to state. It has been found by both the Judges in the Courts below that the land upon which these bungalows stood and with regard to which rent was claimed was not a part of the 1400 bighas.