The Allahabad High Court has set aside eviction orders concerning a bungalow in Meerut Cantonment after finding fault with the manner in which the Cantonment Board authorities dealt with the property for several years.
Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal observed that the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Cantonment Board, who also held the charge of Estate Officer, knew about the disputed sale transaction but continued collecting house and water taxes from the purchasers before initiating eviction proceedings years later.
Background of the Case
The dispute concerned Bungalow No. 190, Abu Lane, Meerut Cantonment, recorded as an old grant property in the name of Asit Sarkar. The property was subsequently transferred through registered sale deeds, eventually reaching the petitioners, Virendra Kumar Manocha and Anuradha Arora.
From 2009, the Cantonment Board recorded the petitioners' names and raised house tax and water tax demands against them. The petitioners continued paying the taxes until eviction proceedings were initiated in 2017 under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971.
The petitioners argued that the authorities should first have dealt with the question of resumption of the old grant and that the proceedings could not have been initiated in the manner adopted.
Court's Observation
The Court expressed strong concern over the authorities' conduct, particularly the fact that taxes were collected for years despite knowledge of the occupation and sale transaction.
“This Court is shocked by the conduct of the Chief Executive Officer, who hold the duel charge.”
The Court further held that the authority had not proceeded with “clean hands” and noted that authorities cannot “blow hot and cold at the same time.”
Decision
Justice Agarwal set aside the July 17, 2026 appellate order and the November 27, 2017 eviction order passed by the Estate Officer.
The matter was remitted to the Estate Officer, Cantonment Board, Meerut, to place it before the competent authority for a fresh decision in accordance with law. The Court directed that the exercise be completed within three months. The writ petition was accordingly partly allowed.
Case Title: Virendra Kumar Manocha And Another v. Union Of India And 2 Others
Case Number: Matters Under Article 227 No. 11527 of 2026
-300x169.webp)
