Collected Taxes For 8 Years, Then Initiated Eviction; Allahabad High Court Slams Meerut Cantonment Board, Sets Aside Orders
The Allahabad High Court has set aside eviction proceedings against occupants of a property in Meerut Cantonment, observing that the Cantonment Board's Chief Executive Officer, who also held the charge of Estate Officer, was aware that the petitioners were occupying the property and, despite this, remained silent for 8 years before eviction proceedings were initiated.
A bench of Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal also found that the official concerned had acted against well-settled principles, observing that "authorities cannot blow hot and cold at the same time".
Justice Agarwal further remitted the matter to the competent authority dealing with such matters to decide the case of petitioners for eviction, in accordance with law, considering the action of the Chief Executive Officer as well as the Estate Officer, Cantonment Board, Meerut.
Case in brief
The Court was hearing a petition under Article 227 concerning Bungalow No. 190, Abu Lane, Meerut Cantt., measuring 0.276 acres and recorded as an old grant in the General Land Register (GLR).
The property was originally recorded in the name of Asit Sarkar, who held occupancy rights over the bungalow.
According to the judgment, Sarkar transferred the premises through a registered sale deed, following which the property ultimately came to the petitioners (Virendra Kumar Manocha and Anuradha Arora).
In 2009, the petitioners' names were recorded in the records of the Cantonment Board, Meerut. The Board thereafter raised demands for house tax and water tax in their names.
The petitioners deposited the taxes and receipts were issued by the Cantonment Board from 2009 onwards, showing the taxes collected for the owner.
However, an inspection was conducted by the Estate Officer in 2017, after which eviction proceedings were initiated against the petitioners under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971.
The petitioners submitted their reply, but an eviction order was subsequently passed. Their appeal against the order was also dismissed. Hence, they moved the High Court.
High Court's observations
The High Court noted that the Chief Executive Officer and Estate Officer were one and the same person. The CEO was responsible for running the Cantonment Board to collect taxes, while the Estate Officer handled the removal of unauthorized occupants from defense land.
The Bench found that once the CEO came to know about the sale deed and the petitioners' occupation and nevertheless raised house-tax and water-tax demands against them, he was aware that the premises were occupied by the petitioners.
The Court specifically noted that no objection was raised for eight years and that the Chief Executive Officer, who also held the charge of Estate Officer, remained silent before initiating proceedings for eviction in 2017. It, therefore, remarked thus:
"This Court is shocked by the conduct of the Chief Executive Officer, who hold the duel charge".
The Bench further observed that if the transaction was barred under the applicable rules, the CEO "should have been immediately taken action against the petitioners in the year 2008 itself".
Instead, it noted, the officer proceeded to raise house-tax and water-tax demands against the petitioners, which continued to be deposited from 2009 to 2017. It was only in 2017 that eviction proceedings were initiated.
Against this backdrop, the High Court remarked that the Chief Executive Officer, who also held the charge of Estate Officer, had "not proceeded in the matter with clean hands".
The officer had relied upon Sections 74 and 81(4) of the Cantonment Board Act, 2006 to contend that the CEO, as taxing authority, was required to realise house and water taxes from occupants of defence property.
The Court, however, noted that the CEO, who also functioned as Estate Officer, should have immediately taken action under Section 4 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971, by issuing notice against the petitioners, but instead remained silent for eight years.
The Bench noted that taxes had been raised from the occupants “fully knowing that the transaction entered by the original lessee in favour of petitioners was barred by Rule 15 of the Rules of 2021”, yet the taxes were collected and eviction proceedings were initiated only after eight years.
In view of these circumstances, the High Court set aside both the order dated July 17, 2026 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge/Judge (SC/ST Act), Meerut, in the miscellaneous appeal and the eviction order dated November 27, 2017 passed by the Estate Officer, Cantonment Board, Meerut under Section 5(1) of the 1971 Act.
The Court remitted the matter to the competent authority and directed that a decision be taken within three months. The writ petition was, thus, partly allowed.
Counsel for Petitioner(s): Aman Ahsan, Devansh Misra
Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.S.G.I., Anil Kumar Rai, Prashant Mathur
Case Title: Virendra Kumar Manocha And Another vs. Union Of India And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 644
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 644