Back
Can't Collect Tax Then Evict After Eight Years, Tells
In a strongly worded ruling that censures administrative double standards, the has set aside an eviction order passed by the against the owners of a bungalow in Meerut Cantt. The Court held that the Board’s conduct of collecting house tax and water tax from the petitioners for eight years before initiating eviction proceedings under the , was impermissible.
Eight Years of Taxes, Then Eviction Notice: Court Censures Dual Role
Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal, presiding over a petition under , expressed shock at the actions of the Chief Executive Officer of the , who also held the charge of Estate Officer. The Court noted that the officer knew about the petitioners' possession through registered sale deeds but remained silent for eight years, collecting taxes all the while, and only in began eviction proceedings.
“This Court is shocked by the conduct of the Chief Executive Officer, who hold the duel charge,” the bench observed, adding that the officer had “not proceeded in the matter with .”
The Backstory of a Disputed Bungalow
The dispute concerns Bungalow No. 190, Abu Lane, Meerut Cantt., recorded in the General Land Register as an in the name of Asit Sarkar. Through registered sale deeds in and , the property eventually came to be owned by petitioners Virendra Kumar Manocha and Smt. Anuradha Arora. The recorded their names in and raised tax demands, which the petitioners paid regularly until . Suddenly, the Estate Officer inspected the property and initiated eviction proceedings, claiming the sale deeds violated .
Arguments: Petitioner Says No Resumption Order, Respondent Cites Bar on Transfer
Counsel for the petitioners, , argued that without an order for granted to the original lessee, the authorities could not proceed with eviction. He further contended that the Station Commander was the competent authority to decide matters relating to transfer of properties, and that proceedings under could not be initiated without such determination.
In response, counsel for the respondents, , placed reliance on a notification authorizing the Chief Executive Officer to act as Estate Officer. He argued that the sale deeds were in teeth of and that the CEO was merely collecting tax from the occupier under Sections 74 and 81(4) of the Act, 2006, and was not required to decide the issue of .
Court's Verdict: 'Cannot '
The High Court rejected the respondents' arguments, emphasizing that the CEO, who also functioned as Estate Officer, had full knowledge of the petitioners’ possession since . “The Chief Executive Officer without raising any objection or intimating to appropriate authority, proceeded to raise the house tax and water tax demand against the petitioners and the same continued to be deposited from the year to the year ,” the Court noted.
Applying the principle that authorities cannot act inconsistently, Justice Agarwal held: “authorities cannot at the same time. In the present case, taxes have been raised from the occupier of property on behalf of owner fully knowing that the transaction entered by the original lessee in favour of petitioners was barred by , then too taxes have been collected and proceedings for eviction have been initiated after lapse of eight years.”
Key Observations by Justice Agarwal
- “The Chief Executive Officer, who also holds the charge of Estate Officer, has not proceeded in the matter with .”
- “Once it was within the knowledge of Chief Executive Officer that the premise in question was occupied by petitioners… he should have been immediately taken action against the petitioners in the year itself.”
- “The Chief Executive Officer, who also functions as Estate Officer, should have immediately taken action under by issuing notice against the petitioners, but he remained silent for eight years.”
What Happens Next? Matter Remanded for Fresh Decision
The High Court set aside both the eviction order dated passed by the Estate Officer and the dismissal of the appeal by the , on . The matter has been remitted to the Estate Officer with a direction to place it before the competent authority, who must decide the case in accordance with law, considering the conduct of the CEO and Estate Officer. The entire exercise must be completed within three months. The writ petition was partly allowed, giving the petitioners a fresh opportunity to contest the eviction on merits.
