2026:UHC:1682 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI Writ Petition No. 2080 of 2021 (MS) Kamal Narang --Petitioner Versus Cantonment Board Tillital Nainital -Respondents With WPMS No. 2074/2021 WPMS No. 2075/2021 WPMS No. 2076/2021 WPMS No. 2077/2021 WPMS No. 2150/2021 WPMS No. 2159/2021 WPMS No. 2161/2021 WPMS No. 2167/2021 WPMS No. 2168/2021 WPMS No. 2169/2021 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Advocates: Mr. Vinay Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, Advocate for the Cantonment Board ---------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT 1. Since common questions of fact and law are involved in these petitions, therefore, they are clubbed together and decided by this common judgment. However, for the sake of brevity and convenience, facts of Writ Petition No. 2080 of 2021 (MS) alone are being considered and discussed. 2. Petitioner filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 18.09.2021, passed by District Judge, Nainital in Eviction Appeal No. 94 of 2021. He has also challenged the consequent notice dated 21.09.2021, issued by the Estate Officer, Cantonment Board, Nainital. 1 2026:UHC:1682 3. It is not in dispute that petitioners were tenants in respect of shop belonging to Cantonment Board, situate at Bhowali Road, Nainital. 4. Proceedings for eviction of the petitioners were initiated under provisions of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971, which resulted in passing of eviction order against them. Petitioners preferred appeal which was also dismissed by learned District Judge. Thus feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by Estate Officer as affirmed by District Judge, petitioner filed this writ petition. 5. This Court vide order dated 30.09.2021 directed for maintaining status quo, qua possession over the shop in question provided petitioner deposits a sum of Rs. 4.00 lakh with the Registry of this Court. Undertaking given by petitioners’ counsel that petitioners will deposit arrears of rent till passing of order of the appellate authority, within eight weeks, was also recorded in order dated 30.09.2021. 6. Today, the matter is listed on an application whereby a prayer is made that the writ petition be decided in terms of written compromise dated 11.12.2025, entered between the parties. 7. Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, learned counsel appearing for the Cantonment Board concedes that Cantonment Board has entered into a compromise with the petitioners, therefore, he has no objection if the writ petitions are decided in terms of the compromise. The compromise deed shall form part of this order. 2 2026:UHC:1682 8. In view of the consensus between the parties, these writ petitions are decided in terms of the compromise entered into between the parties on 11.12.2025. 9. The amount deposited by petitioners in terms of order of this Court shall be released with interest, if any, in favour of Cantonment Board. Such of the petitioners who failed to deposit Rs. 4.00 lakh, in the Registry in terms of order of this Court, shall deposit the said amount along, with interest, directly with the Cantonment Board. ______________________________ MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J. Dt: 12.03.2026 Mahinder 3 MAHINDER SINGH Digitally signed by MAHINDER SINGH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=da6212e6e78d94ed3134842bc6a8d6ca168979ca7b8c2f031a92d1a18b08923 c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=AB77B7C5B240908B392BE84F5CDD4C2AF35DC4626D305B1BC9EA4B ABA43D2B8F, cn=MAHINDER SINGH Date: 2026.03.13 19:54:50 +05'30'