Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 742 (JHR)

Saurav Arun v. State of Jharkhand

2022-06-28

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

body2022
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mrs. Ritu Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. P.A.S. Pati, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Sachin Kumar, learned counsel for the Housing Board. 2. This petition has been filed for direction upon the respondents to take initiatives so that the petitioner is not illegally restrained from entering his plot allocated to him by Jharkhand State Housing Board under HIG bearing no. 10(A)-2. Further prayer has been made for direction upon the respondents to take appropriate measures for restraining the anti-social/local goons from disturbing the petitioner’s possession and creating hindrance in entering the said premises. 3. It was contended that the petitioner was earlier allotted plot by the Jharkhand State Housing Board, which was subsequently cancelled and the petitioner moved before this Court in W.P.(C) No. 4101 of 2016 in which cancellation order was quashed and the direction was issued to allot suitable plot to the petitioner within a period of eight weeks. The said order was not complied with and the contempt petition was filed. The Managing Director of the Jharkhand State Housing Board appeared in the contempt proceeding and on his assurance, the contempt petition was disposed of and subsequently, the petitioner was allotted another plot by the Jharkhand State Housing Board. Since the allotment made to the petitioner was on an enhanced rate, the same was challenged by the petitioner by way of W.P.(C) No. 148 of 2020 which was disposed of vide order dated 26.10.2021 in which direction was issued for execution of perpetual lease deed between the Jharkhand State Housing Board and the petitioner and handing over of the possession of the said plot to the petitioner. 4. This aspect of the matter has been considered by this Court in order dated 06.05.2022 and considering the same direction was issued to respondent no. 2 to provide police protection to the petitioner for erecting boundary wall over the plot in question and the matter was directed to be listed on 13.05.2022. 5. On 13.05.2022 Mr. B.R. Rochan, learned counsel appeared by way of filing vakalatnma to intervene in the matter and considering the submission of the learned counsels for the petitioner, State and Jharkhand State Housing Board, this Court passing following order: “Reference may be made to the order dated 06.05.2022. The details have already been disclosed in that order. 5. On 13.05.2022 Mr. B.R. Rochan, learned counsel appeared by way of filing vakalatnma to intervene in the matter and considering the submission of the learned counsels for the petitioner, State and Jharkhand State Housing Board, this Court passing following order: “Reference may be made to the order dated 06.05.2022. The details have already been disclosed in that order. By the said order respondent No. 2 (Senior Superintendent of Police, Ranchi) was directed to provide police protection for erecting the boundary wall over the plot in question on 11.05.2022, as suggested by Mr. P.A.S. Pati, learned G.A.-II for the State and Mr. Sachin Kumar, learned counsel for the Jharkhand State Housing Board. Today when the matter was taken up, Mrs. Ritu Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. P.A.S. Pati, learned G.A.- II for the State and Mr. Sachin Kumar, learned counsel for the Jharkhand State Housing Board jointly submit that the police force has been provided and the construction of boundary wall was started, however again miscreants have obstructed the work and due to that reason the construction of the said boundary wall was stopped. Mr. B.R. Rochan, learned counsel has appeared and submits that he may kindly be allowed to intervene in the matter on behalf of the miscreants/strangers. It has been submitted by Mr. Sachin Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the Jharkhand State Housing Board that the plot was acquired by the then State of Bihar long back and after bifurcation of the State of Jharkhand, the said plot was allotted to the Jharkhand State Housing Board and he submits that the plot in question of the Jharkhand State Housing Board was rightly allotted in favour of the petitioner. He further submits that since so many periods, the plot in question is with the Jharkhand State Housing Board and the right, title, interest and possession was not claimed earlier on behalf of the others, as such, the submission of Mr. Rochan is fit to be rejected. Mr. B.R. Rochan, learned counsel is said to appear in this case on behalf of the strangers/miscreants, rather they are not the party in the proceeding and they have not challenged the acquisition order of the State of Bihar and even the allotment in favour of the petitioner is also not under challenge by the strangers/miscreants and only to create hindrance, they are trying to intervene in the matter. How the land mafias are active in the State of Jharkhand, is well known to the citizens of the State. These land mafias have gone to such extent that they are interfering with the police also, as such this is required to be handled with iron hands. In the case in hand, the State of Jharkhand and the Jharkhand State Housing Board have also supported the case of the petitioner. If there are substance in the submission of Mr. B.R. Rochan and the strangers are aggrieved, there are having the remedies, available under the law. The strangers have not challenged the allotment order of the plot in question of the petitioner and acquisition is also not under challenge, since long back, the same has been acquired by the then State of Bihar and till date nothing has been done on behalf of the strangers. As such, the prayer of Mr. Rochan to interfere in the matter on behalf of the strangers/miscreants, is hereby, rejected. Since on the trouble created by the strangers/miscreants, the construction work of boundary wall was stopped, the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi and Senior Superintendent of Police, Ranchi shall take further steps so that boundary wall on the plot in question is erected. The Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi shall depute a competent Magistrate on the site, if required, so that police force may act on the direction to comply the order for erection of the boundary wall over the plot in question. It is expected that this exercise shall be completed within a week from today. It is made clear that after erection of the boundary wall, if it is demolished without process of law, the police shall take appropriate action against the miscreants/strangers and apprised to this court on the next date of listing.” 6. Today, Mr. Ram Subhag Singh, learned counsel appeared and submits that he has filed I.A. No.4618 of 2022 for modification in para 7 of order dated 13.05.2022. He submits that so far as rest part of the order is concerned, he has no objection. 7. With regard to word ‘strangers’ used for intervener as mentioned in para 7 of order dated 13.05.2022, he submits that interveners are not strangers and they are having valid documents. He submits that by the word ‘strangers’ the case of the interveners may be prejudiced. 8. It appears that submission of Mr. Singh, is misconceived. 7. With regard to word ‘strangers’ used for intervener as mentioned in para 7 of order dated 13.05.2022, he submits that interveners are not strangers and they are having valid documents. He submits that by the word ‘strangers’ the case of the interveners may be prejudiced. 8. It appears that submission of Mr. Singh, is misconceived. The Court has taken care in passing the said order as Court has observed that interveners are having remedies under the law. The Court has taken note of the fact that the allotment order of the plot in question of the petitioner and acquisition of the land in question which was long back acquired by the then State of Bihar, was not challenged by the strangers/interveners. Although nothing has come against strangers/interveners however, the Court has observed that strangers/interveners have remedies under the law and nothing prejudiced to the interveners by order dated 13.05.2022. 9. This interlocutory application is misconceived one. No modification is required in order dated 13.05.2022 as there are observation in the said order to avail remedy under the law. Accordingly, I.A. No.4618 of 2022 stands rejected. 10. Mrs. Ritu Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. P.A.S. Pati, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Sachin Kumar, learned counsel for the Jharkhand State Housing Board jointly submit that order has been complied with. The petitioner is having able to construct boundary wall under police protection. 11. In this view of the matter there is nothing required to decide in this petition. Accordingly, this criminal writ petition is disposed of.