A pending non-maintainable appeal cannot restrain lawful eviction of unauthorised Cantonment land occupants.

The petitioner occupied property bearing GLRS No.388/432 Part, Depot Lane, Pallavaram, Chennai, where he claimed that he and his family had resided since 1960 while paying property tax and electricity charges.

The Cantonment Board initiated eviction proceedings under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. The petitioner’s appeal against the Estate Officer’s eviction order was dismissed in P.P.C.M.A. No.11 of 2019, and the subsequent revision before the High Court was also dismissed.

The petitioner thereafter sought regularisation of his occupation under the Cantonment Land Administration Rules, 2021. The request was rejected by the Cantonment Board on 16.02.2026, following which he filed P.P.C.M.A. No.5 of 2026 before the Principal District and Sessions Court, Chengalpattu.

While that proceeding was pending, the Cantonment Board issued a communication dated 22.07.2026 to the Deputy Commissioner of Police seeking police assistance, including women police personnel, for eviction scheduled on 31.07.2026.

The petitioner challenged that communication by seeking a writ of certiorari.

1. Whether the Cantonment Board’s communication dated 22.07.2026 seeking police assistance for eviction was liable to be quashed as arbitrary or premature because the petitioner’s proceedings challenging rejection of regularisation were pending.

2. Whether the petitioner’s alleged long possession, payment of taxes and occupation of the property created a legal basis for regularisation or restrained the Cantonment Board from enforcing the eviction order.

3. Whether the pending P.P.C.M.A. No.5 of 2026 constituted a statutory impediment to the Cantonment Board proceeding with eviction.

The Court applied the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, particularly Section 9, which provides an appeal only against orders of the Estate Officer under Sections 5, 5B, 5C and 7, and permits the appellate authority to stay enforcement.

It further applied Rule 7 of the Cantonment Property Rules, 2017, under which immovable property belonging to or vesting in the Cantonment Board cannot ordinarily be transferred except by lease, and any permissible transfer requires prior sanction of the Central Government.

The Court held that unlawful occupation cannot be regularised contrary to the governing statute or rules, even where a court has directed consideration of a representation.

It also relied upon earlier High Court directions concerning removal of encroachments and the Supreme Court’s continuing mandamus in Common Cause v. Union of India, W.P.(C) No.204 of 2014, concerning identification and retrieval of unauthorisedly occupied defence lands.

The Court found that the petitioner’s possession of the building and the property-tax assessment did not establish any lawful entitlement to the cantonment land.

The land was undisputedly under the control of the Ministry of Defence and the Cantonment Board, and the petitioner’s challenge to the original eviction order had already failed before the appellate and revisional forums.

The rejection of regularisation was consistent with the restrictions under the Cantonment Property Rules, 2017, since the applicable law did not authorise legalisation of the petitioner’s unauthorised occupation.

The impugned letter was merely a consequential communication seeking police assistance to implement the eviction process; it was not an independent adjudicatory order affecting the petitioner’s substantive rights.

Since the petitioner had exhausted his remedies against the eviction order, and the subsequent appeal against rejection of regularisation was apparently not maintainable under Section 9, its pendency could not restrain the Cantonment Board from enforcing the eviction and complying with prior court directions.

The writ petition challenging the communication dated 22.07.2026 was dismissed as devoid of merit. The connected miscellaneous petitions were closed, with no order as to costs.