DHIRENDRA KUMAR Vs. BIHAR STATE HOUSING BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition had been filed by the petitioner for initiating a proceeding of contempt against opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 and for punishing them for their alleged deliberate and willful disobedience of order of a Bench of this Court dated 16.6.2011 passed in I.A. No. 3982 of 2011 which was filed in M.A. No. 907 of 2010. The aforesaid M.A. No. 907 of 2010 had arisen out of Title Suit No. 335 of 2006, which was filed by the petitioner against the Bihar State Housing Board (hereinafter referred to as "the Housing Board" for the sake of brevity) and others for declaration that the plaintiff's removal from the suit house (M.I.G. House No. 237 of Lohiya Nagar, Patna) was illegal and the plaintiff was entitled to be put in occupation of the same through the process of the Court and also for a decree of permanent mandatory injunction against the defendants in the said suit. Full court fee was paid and the suit was admitted, notices were sent to all the defendants and written statement was also filed by all the defendants except defendant No. 1 and learned trial court vide order dated 31.8.2009 rejected the plea of defendants to decide the suit on preliminary issue because it was found that sufficient cause of action had been disclosed and full facts had been mentioned in the plaint.

(2.) Thereafter on 19.5.2007 plaintiff filed an interlocutory application for ad-interim injunction restraining defendant Nos. 6 and 7 from alienating, selling or parting with possession or creating encumbrance during the pendency of the suit with respect to the suit house, which was in their possession. However, the said interlocutory application was rejected by learned Subordinate Judge-12, Patna vide order dated 6.9.2010, which was challenged by the plaintiff in M.A. No. 907 of 2010. In the said miscellaneous appeal I.A. No. 3982 of 2011 was filed by the plaintiff and by interim order dated 16.6.2011 this court restrained the authorities of the Board from alienating, encumbering or making constructions with respect to the property in question.

(3.) In this M.J.C. case the claim of petitioner is that in spite of the said order opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 in collusion with each other started constructing floor-wise school known as New Era High School in the residential suit house without any sanction of map specially when no construction or conversion is permitted to any unauthorized occupant of the house/flat of the Housing Board.