RAJENDRA SHARMA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ application the petitioner prays that the respondents be directed not to disturb the possession of the petitioner from middle income group house No. 114 situated in Lohianagar in the town of Patna. This house, the petitioner claims, has been taken possession of by him in pursuance of a letter issued on 19-11-1981 from the office of the Estate Officer of the Bihar State Housing Board (the "Board") addressed to the Executive Engineer of the Board, Patna Division directing him to deliver possession of the house to the petitioner.

(2.) The petitioner"s case is that he is a social worker. The then Chief Minister Dr. Jagannath Mishra recommended that allotment be made in favour of the petitioner. The Board had already decided to reserve three per cent of the total number of houses to be allotted on special recommendation by the Government. The Board, therefore, agreed to allot M. G. I. H. House No. 114 of Lohianagar to the petitioner. An agreement of hire purchase was executed between the petitioner and the Estate Officer of the Board on 17-11-1981 (Annexure 2). Thereafter a letter dt. 19-11-1981 (annexure 3) was issued directing the delivery of possession of the house in question to the petitioner. There was some dispute in relation to actual taking of possession by the petitioner. But ultimately the petitioner started living in the house after it was made vacant on 29-9-1982. On 2-10-1982 a police force headed by an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police came to the petitioner and asked him to vacate the house. The petitioner told the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police that he is the legal owner of the house. There was thus no question of his vacation of the premises. The Assistant Sub-Inspector of police informed the petitioner that he had been directed by the Administration and the Housing Board to see that no one takes possession of the house. The petitioner, therefore, as a law abiding citizen locked the house and left the house keeping the keys with him. Since many persons are approaching the Board for the allotment of the house it has become necessary to file a writ application for the purpose aforesaid.

(3.) At the time of admission one Sardar Mohan Singh intervened. He has been added as respondent 7. Counter-affidavits have been filed on behalf of the Board as also the added respondent. Respondent 7 has himself filed a separate writ application in which he seeks a mandamus directing the allotment of the house in question to him. Since I propose to deal with that case separately, it is not necessary to refer to his counter-affidavit, particularly in the view that I am taking in this case. Counter-affidavits have also been filed on behalf of the State.