Court Rules Authorities Cannot Collect Taxes for Years and Later Initiate Eviction; Matter Remanded for Fresh Decision by Competent Authority
In a significant ruling delivered on August 25, 2026, the Allahabad High Court set aside eviction orders passed by the Cantonment Board, Meerut, against Virendra Kumar Manocha and Anuradha Arora, holding that the authorities acted inconsistently by collecting house and water taxes for eight years before initiating eviction proceedings.
The dispute revolved around bungalow No. 190, Abu Lane, Meerut Cantt, originally held under an old grant by Asit Sarkar. The property was transferred through a chain of registered sale deeds, ultimately reaching the petitioners. From 2009 onwards, the Cantonment Board recorded the petitioners as occupants and raised demands for house and water taxes, which were duly paid by the petitioners. Despite knowledge of these transfers, the Estate Officer and Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Cantonment Board - the same individual holding dual charge - remained silent for years. Only in 2017 did they initiate eviction proceedings under The Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971.
The petitioners challenged the eviction, arguing that the authorities failed to act promptly and that the Station Commander was the competent authority to decide on the transfer of old grant properties. They also contended that the transfer transactions were barred by Rule 15 of the Cantonment Land Administration Rules, 2021, and that eviction proceedings without prior resumption of lease were invalid.
The Court observed that the Chief Executive Officer, who acted both as taxing authority and Estate Officer, knowingly collected taxes from the petitioners as occupants for nearly eight years without raising any objection or initiating eviction proceedings. Such contradictory conduct was deemed improper and against settled legal principles that authorities cannot "blow hot and cold at the same time." The Court held that once the CEO was aware of the unauthorized occupation, action under Section 4 of the 1971 Act should have been taken immediately.
Consequently, the Court quashed the eviction orders dated July 17, 2026, and November 27, 2017, and remitted the matter back to the Estate Officer to be placed before the competent authority for reconsideration in accordance with law. The Court directed that the reconsideration be completed within three months. The judgment serves as a stern reminder that government authorities must act consistently and cannot collect taxes on the one hand while initiating eviction on the other after undue delay.
Bottom Line:
Authorities must act consistently and cannot adopt contradictory stands, such as collecting taxes from occupiers for years while later initiating eviction proceedings without timely objection.
Statutory provision(s):
Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 Sections 4, 5(1); Cantonment Land Administration Rules, 2021 Rule 15; Cantonment Board Act, 2006 Sections 74, 81(4)
Virendra Kumar Manocha v. Union of India, (Allahabad) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2971226
