K.M. JOSEPH, J.

This appeal is filed against the order passed in Writ Petition No. 2609 of 2016.

2. Appellant is the writ petitioner. The writ petition was filed challenging Annexure No. 4 dated 06.11.2014 passed by respondent no. 2-GOC revoking Annexure No. 18 dated 24.09.2013 and directing that notice under Section 248 of the Cantonment Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) be issued to the appellant by the Cantonment Board, Landour (hereinafter referred to as “the Board”) for demolition of the unauthorized construction put up by the appellant. Appellant also put in issue Annexure No. 3 Board Resolution No. 1 dated 08.11.2014, by which it was resolved by the Board to issue notice under Section 248 of the Act to demolish the entire unauthorized construction amounting to 28045.57 Sq. Ft. carried out by the appellant. Annexure No. 2 dated 10.11.2014 is called in question by the appellant and it purports to be styled under sub section (2) of Section 248 of the Act at the top of the page, purporting to exercise powers under sub section (1) of Section 248 and giving notice for demolition of the building.

3. The case of the appellant, as discerned from the pleadings in the writ petition appears to be as follows:

Appellant purchased vide Annexure No. 8 document dated 27.04.2009, property in Survey No. 157 known as Dahlia Bank, Landour Cantonment, which had a 150 years old building over it. The property was mutated; the appellant started paying taxes (Annexure No. 9). He applied for erection/re-erection of the building vide Annexure No. 10 application dated 21.10.2009. Though, it was recommended, it was not sanctioned. According to the appellant, he became entitled to the benefit of deemed sanction under Section 238(6) of the Act. He filed Original Suit No. 249 of 2011 on 06.05.2011 praying for injunction. The trial court dismissed the suit on 26.05.2012. The first appeal filed by the appellant as Civil Appeal No. 57 of 2012 was allowed on 21.09.2012. The respondent-Board filed second appeal being Second Appeal No. 100 of 2012. The appeal was allowed on 14.08.2013. The judgment of the First Appellate Court was set aside and the following was the direction given by the Second Appellate Court:

“19. Accordingly, the second appeal is allowed. Impugned judgment and decreed dated 21.09.2012, passed by the District Judge, Dehradun, in Civil Appeal No. 57 of 2012, is set aside. The suit No. 249 of 2011, filed by the plaintiff before Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Dehradun, stands dismissed with the observation that if the plaintiff submits fresh plan leaving fifty meters of distance from the crest of outer parapet of ITM, the same may be considered by the appellant and respondent no. 2 in accordance with law. However, no orders as to costs.”

4. Though, two Special Leave Petitions were carried before the Hon’ble Apex Court, the judgment of the Second Appellate Court was confirmed but certain observations were made and we will advert to the same later.

5. The respondent-Board passed Resolution No. 6 on 20.03.2012 (Annexure No. 11) granting sanction to carry out repair work in the Tennis Court located in the appellant’s property. According to the appellant, he filed another application dated 18.06.2012 along with the proposed plan, as submitted earlier (Annexure No. 12). On the same, the Board passed Annexure No. 13 Resolution dated 30.06.2012 permitting construction. It is stated that the members submitted a written application dated 23.08.2012, signed by the Vice President and five other elected members for carrying out rectification in the Board Resolution dated 30.06.2012. The Board on 18.09.2012 by majority vote clarified that in the meeting held on 30.06.2012, they have sanctioned entire building plan placed before the Board and it was also supported by the President, Cantonment Board (hereinafter referred to as “PCB”). The R