JUDGMENT

Hon'ble Lok Pal Singh, J.

By means of present writ petition, petitioner has sought the following relief:-

(i) Issue a writ of certiorari and quash the impugned letter no.13/157/VOL.V/CBL/03 dated 20.02.2019 and Cantonment Board Resolution No.17 dated 16.02.2019 by which the respondent no.1 has rejected the petitioner's application dated 10.1.2019 under Section 234 and 235 of the Cantonments Act, 2006 for sanction of construction of a residential building at Dahlia Bank, Survey No.157, Landour Cantonment, Mussooriee, Uttarakhand, contained as Annexure No.1 to the writ petition.

2. Factual matrix of the case is that on 27.04.2009 petitioner purchased the property Dahlia Bank, Survey No.157, Landour Cantonment, Mussoorie, Uttarakhand, from the erstwhile owner Mr. B.P. Singh vide registered sale deed dated 27.04.2009. Before it, the Central Government through Respondent no.3 had issued a Notification dated 30.08.2005 notifying the Institute of Technology Management (ITM), situated in Landour Cantonment, Mussoorie, under the provisions of Section 3 of the Works of Defence Act, 1903 and prohibiting any construction within 50 meters of the outer crest of the parapet of the ITM. Since the property had a 150 years old building over it and the same was in a severely dilapidated condition, the petitioner applied for erection/re-erection of the building vide application dated 21.10.2009. According to the appellant, he became entitled to the benefit of deemed sanction under Section 238(6) of the Cantonments Act, 2006 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act). He thus filed Original Suit No. 249 of 2011 seeking a decree of perpetual injunction. According to the petitioner, initially the Cantonment Board sanctioned the construction on 30.06.2012 but this sanction was dissented by the then CEO and referred to the then GOC-in-C, who ultimately revoked the sanction.

3. The trial court dismissed the suit of the petitioner on 26.05.2012 against which he filed first appeal before the District Judge, Dehradun. The first appeal was allowed and the suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 21.09.2012. Being aggrieved by said judgment and decree, the Cantonment Board preferred Second Appeal No. 100 of 2012. The appeal was allowed by judgment and order dated 14.08.2013 with the following observation and directions:-

“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. The judgment and order dated 14.08.2013 was challenged by the petitioner before the Hon'ble Apex Court by way of S.L.P. By judgment dated 21.04.2014 S.L.P. preferred by the petitioner was dismissed. Meanwhile, the petitioner filed a writ petition being WPMS No.2962 of 2017 challenging the Notification dated 30.08.2005. On 10.11.2014, the CEO of the Cantonment Board issued the demolition notice to the petitioner. Against the demolition notice, the petitioner preferred the writ petition being WPMS No.2609 of 2014, which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 27.11.2014, against which special appeal no.645 of 2014 was filed before the Division Bench, which was also dismissed vide judgment dated 05.09.2017. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the Hon'ble Apex Court and filed the SLP, which also stood dismissed.

5. Meanwhile, the petitioner filed a review petition against the judgment dated 5.9.2017 passed in SPA No.645 of 2014. The review petition was partly allowed by the Division Bench vide order dated 10.01.2018 thereby restraining the demolition of building no.2 and part of building no.6 wh