IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10864 of 2005 Bans Raj Pandey son of Late Baban Pandey @ Sheo Kumar Pandey resident of Mohalla Mustafabad, P.S. Rampur, Distt. Gaya ----- Petitioner. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the District Magistrate, Gaya. 2. The Managing Director, Bihar State Housing Board, Sardar Patel Marg, Patna – 800 015. 3. The Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board, A.P. Colony, Gaya. 4. Nitya Nand Yadav son of Late Sewak Yadav resident of Mohalla Gangobigha, P.S. Rampur, Distt. Gaya. ------ Respondents. ---------------------------------- For the petitioner : Mr. Ajay Kumar Jain, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, A.C to G.A-8 For the Housing Board : Mrs. Binita Singh, Advocate. ----------------------------------- 2. 14.11.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for the Bihar State Housing Board. The writ petition has been filed for a direction to the respondents to remove encroachment from Flat No. 54, MIG Colony, Gaya. The petitioner is the allottee of the adjacent Flat No. 55. It is alleged that the private respondent has encroached the said Flat No. 54 without any allotment or legal basis and has also made encroachment upon the common areas of the whole scheme. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Bihar State Housing Board in which technical objection has been raised in as much as it is stated that since the petitioner has not got his lease agreement registered, he cannot 2 maintain the writ petition. Further, it is said that the Board is taking legal opinion as to whether it can move for removal of such encroachment. The counter affidavit has been sworn on 11.2.2009. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds the attitude of the Bihar State Housing Board to be unjustified and peculiar. The Board is supposed to keep its property free from the encroachment and also ensure that other beneficiaries who are in possession legally, are able to enjoy the property without any hindrance or disturbance. In the present case it is not in dispute that the petitioner is a bona fide allottee and has also paid his entire dues. The Board cannot take shelter for its inaction only on the plea that the lease had not been formally executed on behalf of the petitioner. The petitioner is not asking for any such direction or apportioning blame on the Housing Board for not registering the lease deed. The simple prayer is that the Flat which belongs to the Board has been unauthorizedly occupied and it being an encroachment, the same has to be removed in accordance with law. This Court finds substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The Respondents No. 1 and 2 are directed to ensure that the Flat in question as well as the common areas in the said scheme, are made encroachment free. Let the same be done within three months from the date of production/receipt of a copy of this order on the 3 concerned respondents. It appears that it is the primary responsibility of the Respondent No. 2 to initiate appropriate proceedings against the Respondent No. 4. The Respondent No. 1 is directed to provide adequate security for removal of any encroachment in accordance with law upon request made by the Housing Board. Let the same be done by the concerned respondents in cooperation with each other to ensure that the order is complied with within the time specified. S.Ali ( Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)