JUDGMENT

The brief facts, which engage consideration in the present writ petition are, that the petitioner contends that he had inherited a

property which was lying in khasra no.652 located in Village Rawli Mehdoodpur, District Haridwar, which stands recorded in khatauni of 1426 to 1431; as a land recorded under shreni 6(2), non-agricultural

land. The Haridwar Development Authority, was notified as a Development Authority, by virtue of issuance of a gazette notification on 04.06.1986 and, as a consequence thereto, 39 villages of District

Haridwar, were included within the territory of the Development Authority.

2. On khasra no.652, over which the petitioner claims his right of ownership, fell in the development area and since a construction was being raised without their being a prior proper sanction u/s 14 of the Uttarakhand Urban Planning and Development Act of 1973 (as amended in 2009), (for short, the Act) a complaint was preferred by the neighbourer, who had an animosity with the petitioner, and on the basis of the said complaint, the cognizance was taken and a report was called. The Tehsildar is alleged to have submitted a report to the effect that the construction was raised by the petitioner, without taking a prior permission u/s 14 of the Act, hence, was an unauthorized construction, which was raised by the petitioner.

3. On initiation of the proceedings u/s 27 of the Act, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and a notice u/s 28, was also issued calling upon the petitioner to stop the construction by virtue of an order of 05.03.2016. However, the construction activity was not stopped and it was continued to be raised. Consequently, by an order of 25.02.2017, the premises was sealed by a sealing order u/s 28A(g) of the Act.

4. It was thereafter, that the petitioner filed an application u/s 32 of the Act for compounding the construction thus raised by him, which was considered by the Development Authority, and the same was rejected by an order dated 03.08.2017. Despite the aforesaid proceedings, a four-storied building was raised by the petitioner, without a sanction made in his favour. Petitioner preferred a Civil Suit before the court of Civil Judge (S.D.), in which initially there was a status quo order, granted in Misc. Civil Appeal No.12 of 2017; but later on the Misc. Civil Appeal No.12 of 2017 was dismissed by the court of learned District Judge by an order of 31.05.2017. As against the order of rejection of the compounding application and issuing an order of demolition dated 03.08.2017, an appeal was preferred by the petitioners being Appeal No.28 of 2016-17 before the competent appellate authority, as constituted under the Act of 1973 and the same was also dismissed on 23.08.2017 by the appellate authority. The two orders i.e. 03.08.2017 and dismissal of the appeal by an order of 23.8.2017, was put to challenge by the petitioner by way of filing a revision before the State, being Revision No.466 of 2017, which too was dismissed by the judgment of 06.12.2017. Against these three consecutive and concurrent orders/judgments dated 03.08.2017, 31.05.2017 and 23.08.2017, the petitioner had preferred a writ petition being WPMS No.3294 of 2017, “Balkishan vs. State of Uttarakhand and others", which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge by the judgment of 26.06.2018.

5. Being aggrieved against the said order, a special appeal being SPA No.622 of 2018 was preferred by the petitioner and the special appeal too was dismissed by the Division Bench by the judgment of 08.08.2017, meaning thereby, as far as the petitioner is concerned, the construction raised by him over khasra no.652, has been consistently and concurrently, held to be an unauthorized construction and the demolition order was affirmed upto to the special appellate court of this Court.

6. The respondent in compliance of the said judgment passed by the Division Bench on 08.08.2018, affirming the order of demolition dated 03.08.2017, proceeded to issue an