The main legal point established in the judgment is the rejection of intervention by miscreants and the court's direction to ensure the construction of the boundary wall on the allotted plot.

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. 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.