JOHN BOSCO vs THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

W.P.No.30649 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on :25.08.2026
Pronounced on :03.09.2026
Coram:
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE E.MANOHARAN
Writ Petition No.30649 of 2026
and
W.M.P.Nos.33671 and 33672 of 2026
Mr.John Bosco,
S/o S.T.Manuvel,
GLRS No.388/432 Part,
Depot Lane, C.Pallavaram,
Chennai 600 043. .. Petitioner
/versus/
The Chief Executive Officer,
Cantonment Board,
St.Thomas Mount cum Pallavaram,
Chennai 43. .. Respondent
Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the
impugned notice No.STM/Works/1/1512, dated 22.07.2026 and quash the same
as illegal.
For Petitioner :Mr.P.Vijendran
For Respondents :Mr.C.Mohan for M/s A.RexyJosephine Mary
for M/s King and Partridge
------
Page Nos.1/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:15 pm )

W.P.No.30649 of 2026
ORDER
Dr.G.Jayachandran, J.
and
E.Manoharan, J.
The writ petitioner is in occupation of the property bearing GLRS No:
388/432 Part, Depot Lane, GST Road, Pallavaram, Chennai. The Respondent
herein had addressed a letter dated 22.07.2026 to the Deputy Commissioner of
Police, Law and Order, West Tambaram, Chennai, to depute sufficient Police
Personnel, including Women Police, on 31.07.2026 to avoid law and order
problem, while carrying of the eviction process, pursuant to the orders passed
by the Hon’ble High Court of Madras dated 20.09.2002, 05.02.2025 and
04.02.2026. Challenging the said communication as arbitrary the present Writ of
Certiorari filed to quash the same.
2. According to the learned Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, the
subject property is in possession and occupation of the petitioner and his family
since 1960. They are residing in the property continuously paying the tax and
enjoying electricity service. While so, the respondent herein initiated eviction
proceedings under Section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised
Occupants) Act, 1971. The eviction notice was challenged in Public Premises
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.11 of 2019 and the same was dismissed on
Page Nos.2/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:15 pm )

W.P.No.30649 of 2026
23.02.2024 with liberty to the writ petitioner to approach competent authority
for seeking regularisation. The challenge to the order passed in
P.P.C.M.A.No.11 of 2019 was dismissed by the High Court in C.R.P.No. 2130
of 2024. Thereafter, the writ petitioner gave a representation to the authorities
08.02.2025 for regularisation under the Cantonment Land Administration Rules,
2021, based on the long possession and occupation. The respondent rejected the
request for regularisation vide proceedings No:STM/Works/1/0302 dated
16.02.2026 and commenced its proceedings to evict.
3. Being aggrieved by the rejection of the request to regularise, the writ
petitioner had filed P.P.C.M.A.No:5 of 2026 before the Principal District and
Sessions Court at Chengalpattu and the same is pending. Without taking note of
the fact that the matter is sub judice , the respondent had issued eviction notice
dated 03.03.2026 fixing 11.03.2026 as the date for eviction with the help of
police. By a subsequent communication, the date to evict postponed to
17.03.2026. Hence, the writ petitioner has filed revision petition before the
High Court in C.R.P.No:1763 of 2026 to direct the Principal District and
Sessions Court Chengalpattu to dispose P.P.C.M.A.No.5 of 2026 as
expeditiously as possible. While fact being so, again the respondent has
communicated the Police on 22.07.2026 seeking assistance to evict the
petitioner, hence the writ petition has been filed for the aforesaid prayer.
Page Nos.3/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:15 pm )

W.P.No.30649 of 2026
4.On notice, the respondent appearing through its counsel submitted that,
the proceedings impugned is self-explanatory. The subject land belongs to
Cantonment Board and governed by Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised
Occupants) Act, 1971 and Cantonment Land Administrative Rules, 1937. The
petitioners and others, who were unauthorisedly occupying the road portion of
the cantonment land, was caused to be evicted issuing notices under Section
4(1) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971.
After following the procedure established under law, the Estate Officer passed
an order of eviction. The appeals filed before the District Court by the writ
petitioner and similarly placed persons were dismissed and the further revision
before the High Court got dismissed. Therefore, there is no legal impediment to
proceed with the eviction process. That apart, the unauthorised construction and
occupation by this writ petitioner is also subject matter of a W.P.No:14244/2016
filed by one P.Mohan in which the Hon’ble High Court directed to remove the
encroachment situated in land bearing GLRS No: 388/432 (Part), owned by
Ministry of Defence under the Management of Cantonment Board.
5. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent also submitted that the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in a Public Interest Limitation Writ Petition(s)(Civil)
No(s):204 of 2014 (Common Cause –vs- Union of India) by way of continuous
Page Nos.4/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:15 pm )

W.P.No.30649 of 2026
Mandamus has issued direction to the Ministry of Defence to identify the
defence lands which are occupied unauthorisedly and to retrieve the same. In
respect of appeal pending before the Chengalpattu in P.P.C.M.A.No:5 of 2026
and C.R.P.(PD).No:1763/2026, the Learned Counsel for the respondent
submitted that the appellant requested to regularise his unauthorised occupation
of the cantonment land is not permissible in law. The Cantonment Land Rules
permits only lease of its land in appropriate case and not regularisation or
legalising the unauthorised occupation. Further challenge to the order of
rejecting the request for regularisation is not an appealable order. Only orders
passed under Sections 5, 5B, 5C and 9 alone are appealable. Therefore, the
pendency of frivolous appeal which is not maintainable cannot be a ground to
stale the implementation of this Court order and the direction of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India in respect of removal of encroachment Cantonment
land earmarked as Road.
6. The communication of the respondent to the jurisdictional police
seeking assistance during eviction process reads as below:-
“5. In continuation, vide order cited at reference (iv) above,
Dismissal Orders passed by Honourable High Court of Madras,
Chennai vide order dated 05.02.2025 vide Writ Petition No.14079 of
2024 and W.M.P.Nos.15260 and 15261 of 2024 in favour of
Cantonment Board, directing Cantonment Board to remove the
encroachers with necessary police protection.
6.In continuation, vide order cited at reference (v) & (vi)
Mr.Ravi alias Siva Prakasam, S/o Late Mr.Dasarathan &
Mrs.Caroline has again filed an appeal in Un-numbered PPCMA
Page Nos.5/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:15 pm )

W.P.No.30649 of 2026
No.5440 of 2023 in I.A.No.3 of 2023 & PPCMA No.5478 of 2023 in
I.A.No.4 of 2023 before the Honourable Principal District Court,
Chengalpattu and the same has also been dismissed on 06.01.2026 in
favour of Cantonment Board.
7.Meanwhile, vide order cited at reference (vii) above,
Mr.P.Mohan has again filed a sub Application No.496 of 2023 in
Contempt Petition No.2221 of 2018 in Honourable High Court of
Madras, Chennai and the Honourable High Court of Madras, Chennai
and vide their orders dated 04.02.2026 has pronounced the order and
the salient features are stated as below:-
“ Since the respondents are continuously pursuing the
matter for removal of encroachments and encroachers also have
exhausted the remedies available to them, this Court does not find
any willful disobedience on the part of the respondents in
implementing the orders of this Court. However, it is made clear
that after disposal of the representations, the enforcement action
shall be concluded as expeditiously as possible.”
8.In this connection, vide letter cited at reference (ix) above,
Cantonment Board has requested to depute sufficient police personnel
on 17.03.2026 at 11.000 AM for eviction of the above said
encroachers/un-authorized occupants.
9.However, requisite police personnels was not present
during the time of eviction of above said encroachments/unauthorized
premises.
10.In this connection, Cantonment Board once again decides
to evict the above said unauthorized building/encroachment on
31.07.2026 at 10.00 Hrs.
11.It is therefore again requested to depute sufficient police
personnel, including women police, on aforementioned date and time
for eviction purpose to avoid law and order problems, in terms of
orders passed by Honourable High Court of Madras dated 20.09.2022,
05.02.2025 & 04.02.2026 on the subject issue and also in terms of
orders passed by the Court of Estate Officer, Cantonment Board as
cited above.”
Page Nos.6/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:15 pm )

W.P.No.30649 of 2026
7. The possession of the building and the assessment of the property tax
for that building is not in dispute. The question whether the land belongs
cantonment falling within the purview of Public Premises (Eviction of
Unauthorised Occupants) Act 1971 is also not a disputed fact. The writ
petitioner’s challenge to the eviction order of the estate officer dismissed by the
appellate authority as well as the Revision Court. His request for regularisation
found not feasible, in view of the restriction under the Cantonment Land Rules.
Against the order of rejection, the writ petitioner has preferred appeal before the
District Court, Chengalpattu.
8. Section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants)
Act 1971, which give right of appeal against the order of the Estate Officer
reads as below:-
9. Appeals.— (1) An appeal shall lie from every
order of the estate officer made in respect of any public
premises under section 5 (Eviction of unauthorised
occupants) or section 5B (Order of demolition of
unauthorised construction) or section 5C (Power to seal
unauthorised constructions) or section 7 ( Power to require
payment of rent or damages in respect of public premises)
to an appellate officer who shall be the district judge of the
district in which the public premises are situate or such
other judicial officer in that district of not less than ten
years standing as the district judge may designate in this
Page Nos.7/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:15 pm )

W.P.No.30649 of 2026
behalf.
( 2) An appeal under sub-section (1) shall be
preferred,—
(a) in the case of an appeal from an order under
section 5, within twelve days from the date of publication
of the order under sub-section (1) of that section;
(b) in the case of an appeal from an order under
section 5B or section 7, within twelve days from the date
on which the order is communicated to the appellant; and
(c) in the case of an appeal from an order under
section 5C, within twelve days from the date of such order:
Provided that the appellate officer may entertain the
appeal in exceptional cases after the expiry of the said
period, if he is satisfied for reasons to be recorded in
writing that there was compelling reasons which prevented
the person from filing the appeal in time.
(3) Where an appeal is preferred from an order of the
estate officer, the appellate officer may stay the
enforcement of that order for such period and on such
conditions as he deems fit:
Provided that where the construction or erection of
any building or other structure or fixture or execution of
any other work was not completed on the day on which an
order was made under section 5B for the demolition or
removal of such building or other structure or fixture, the
appellate officer shall not make any order for the stay of
enforcement of such order, unless such security, as may be
sufficient in the opinion of the appellate officer, has been
given by the appellant for not proceeding with such
construction, erection or work pending the disposal of the
appeal.
Page Nos.8/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:15 pm )

W.P.No.30649 of 2026
(4) Every appeal under this section shall be disposed
of by the appellate officer as expeditiously as possible and
every endeavour shall be made to dispose of the appeal
finally within one month from the date of filing the appeal,
after providing the parties an opportunity of being heard.
(5) The costs of any appeal under this section shall be
in the discretion of the appellate officer.
(6) For the purposes of this section, a presidency-
town shall be deemed to be a district and the chief judge or
the principal judge of the city civil court therein shall be
deemed to be the district judge of the district.
9. The land belongs to Ministry of Defence, under the control of the
Cantonment Board. Therefore, the Cantonment Property Rules, 2017 governs
the management of the land. Rule 7 of the Cantonment Property Rules, 2017
says:-
“Rule-7:Transfer by Cantonment Board of
Immovable Property. Immovable property which vests in and
belongs to the Cantonment Board shall not be transferred to any
person by the Cantonment Board by way of sale, mortgage or
exchange, or otherwise than by lease without a premium,
except with the previous sanction of the Central Government
and in such manner and on such terms and conditions as the
Central Government may, approve such sanction:
Provided that if the immovable property is situated
beyond the limits of the Cantonment, the views of the State
Page Nos.9/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:15 pm )

W.P.No.30649 of 2026
Government and the services shall be ascertained by the
Cantonment Board and communicated to the Central
Government through the Principal Director, Defence Estates,
the Command, shall be taken into consideration by the Central
Government.”
10. If the law does not permit regularisation of the unlawful occupation of
the cantonment land, even if there is any observation by the Court to consider
the request, such observation can be abided if only it is permissible in law and
not in contrary to law and statute.
11. In the light of the above factual matrix, the examination of the
respondent letter to the jurisdiction police, which is impugned in this writ
petition, we find that the said letter is the consequential event of the order
passed in the eviction proceedings as well as the direction of the High Court in
the W.P.No: 14244 of 2016. While so, the pendency of a proceedings
P.P.C.M.A.No.5 of 2026, which is apparently not maintainable under law,
cannot constrain the lawful authority from proceeding with the action to remove
the unlawful occupation of the Cantonment land controlled by the Ministry of
Defence. Hence, the relief sought in the writ petition being devoid of merit, and
it is declined.
Page Nos.10/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:15 pm )

W.P.No.30649 of 2026
12. In the result, this Writ Petition is dismissed . Consequently,
Connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No order as to costs.
(Dr.G.Jayachandran,J.) (E.Manoharan,J.)
03.09.2026
Index:yes
Speaking order/non speaking order
Neutral citation:yes/no
ari
To
The Chief Executive Officer,
Cantonment Board,
St.Thomas Mount cum Pallavaram,
Chennai 43.
Page Nos.11/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:15 pm )

W.P.No.30649 of 2026
Dr.G.Jayachandran,J.
and
E.Manoharan,J.
ari
delivery Order made in
Writ Petition No.30649 of 2026
and
W.M.P.Nos.33671 and 33672 of 2026
03.09.2026
Page Nos.12/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:15 pm )