Allahabad HC Sets Aside Meerut Cantonment Eviction Order After Eight Years of Tax Receipts Issued to Occupants

Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal found that the Chief Executive Officer collected house tax from the petitioners for eight years, then initiated eviction proceedings without resuming the original lease grant.

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad has set aside an eviction order and its appellate confirmation against two purchasers of a bungalow situated in Meerut Cantonment, after finding that the same officer who later sought their eviction had spent eight years raising and collecting house tax and water tax from them as owners. Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal, sitting singly under Article 227, held that the Chief Executive Officer and Estate Officer — one and the same person — could not blow hot and cold at the same time. Both the eviction order of November 2017 and the appellate order of July 2026 were set aside, and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration within three months.

The Bungalow, the Old Grant, and the Chain of Transfers

The dispute centred on Bungalow No. 190, Abu Lane, Meerut Cantt., recorded in the General Land Register (GLR) Survey No. 357-1711 measuring 0.276 acres. The land appeared in Column No. 7 of the GLR as an old grant, originally recorded in the name of one Asit Sarkar, son of B.N. Sarkar, who held occupancy rights over the property.

By a registered sale-deed dated 2 September 1998, Asit Sarkar transferred the premises to one Manoj Kumar and Smt. Chitra Singhal. They, in turn, transferred the bungalow to petitioner no. 1, Virendra Kumar Manocha, and one Smt. Rashmi Wadhwa. Smt. Rashmi Wadhwa subsequently transferred her undivided share to Smt. Anuradha Arora, petitioner no. 2.

By 2009, the names of the petitioners had been recorded in the records of Cantonment Board Meerut. The Board raised demand for house tax and water tax in the petitioners' names and issued receipts from 2009 onwards, describing the amounts collected as tax paid by the owner.

Eviction Proceedings Initiated Eight Years Later

In 2017, the Estate Officer, Cantonment Board Meerut — who also held the charge of Chief Executive Officer — conducted an inspection and initiated proceedings for eviction under The Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971. The petitioners filed a reply, but an eviction order was passed under Section 5(1) of that Act on 27 November 2017. A miscellaneous appeal was filed, bearing Misc. Appeal No. 239 of 2017, which was dismissed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge/Judge (SC/ST Act), Meerut on 17 July 2026. Both orders were challenged before the High Court under Article 227.

Counsel for the petitioners, Sri Devansh Misra, argued that no order for resumption of the lease originally granted to Asit Sarkar had been passed before eviction was initiated. He submitted that the Station Commander was the competent authority to decide matters relating to transfer of old grant properties, and that no proceedings under Section 4 of the Act of 1971 could be initiated without that authority first acting. He pointed to a letter dated 4 August 1999 from the Principal Director, Defence Estate to the Executive Officer, Cantonment Board Meerut, as support.

Counsel for respondent nos. 2 and 3, Sri Prashant Mathur, placed reliance on a Government of India notification dated 5 August 1975, which authorised the Chief Executive Officer of a Cantonment Board to act as Estate Officer for the purposes of the Act of 1971. He also relied on Section 74 and Section 81(4) of The Cantonment Board Act, 2006, and submitted that the sale-deeds executed in 2002 and 2008 were in violation of Rule 15 of the Cantonment Land Administration Rules, 2021. He argued that the Chief Executive Officer, in his capacity as taxing authority, was obliged to collect tax from whoever occupied defence property as an occupier, and was not required to adjudicate on unauthorised occupation; that remained the Estate Officer's function.

The Court's Reasoning: One Officer, Two Roles, Contradictory Conduct

Justice Agarwal accepted that the Chief Executive Officer and the Estate Officer were one and the same person holding dual charge. He also accepted that under Section 74 of the Cantonment Board Act, 2006, the Chief Executive Officer was entitled to collect tax from occupiers of defence property, and that the Government of India notification of 1975 validly authorised that officer to act as Estate Officer.

The Court's concern, however, lay in what that dual role entailed. Once the Chief Executive Officer became aware — by at least 2009 — that the premises had been transferred by the original lessee Asit Sarkar and were now occupied by petitioners pursuant to a sale-deed, and once he knew that such a transaction was barred by Rule 15 of the Cantonment Land Administration Rules, 2021, he was obliged to act immediately. Instead, no objection was raised, no intimation was sent to the appropriate authority, and no proceeding was initiated.

For eight continuous years, from 2009 to 2017, the same officer raised tax demands against the petitioners in the capacity of owners and collected the payments. Receipts were issued. It was only in 2017 that eviction proceedings began.

The Court was categorical: “This Court is shocked by the conduct of the Chief Executive Officer, who hold the duel charge.” Justice Agarwal held that the officer had “acted against well settled principles that authorities cannot blow hot and cold at the same time.” Taxes were raised and collected with full knowledge that the transfers were impermissible, and eviction proceedings were then started after a lapse of eight years.

The Court found that the officer had not proceeded with clean hands. While the legal bar under Rule 15 of the Rules of 2021 was not disputed, that bar could not be deployed selectively — ignored for purposes of tax collection and then invoked eight years later to initiate eviction. The proper course, the Court held, would have been to take action under Section 4 of the Act of 1971 by issuing notice immediately upon learning of the occupation, not to collect taxes in the meantime and initiate proceedings years later.

Outcome

The Court set aside the eviction order dated 27 November 2017 passed by the Estate Officer, Cantonment Board Meerut under Section 5(1) of the Act of 1971, and also set aside the order dated 17 July 2026 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge/Judge (SC/ST Act), Meerut in Misc. Appeal No. 239 of 2017.

The matter was remitted to the Estate Officer, Cantonment Board Meerut to be placed before the competent authority dealing with such matters. That authority was directed to decide the case for eviction of the petitioners in accordance with law, taking into account the conduct of the Chief Executive Officer and Estate Officer, Cantonment Board Meerut. The exercise was to be completed within three months from 25 August 2026.

The writ petition was partly allowed.