1. The brief facts to the landing of this appeal before this Tribunal are as under:- Appellant is the owner of the house No: 1869-F situated in Gandhi Nagar Jammu which was constructed in the year 1975 after obtaining permission from the concerned Authority of that time. Besides the residential house, shops were constructed on the outer part of the land. As per appellant, a room was constructed over the shops for being used as clinic as the appellant is a Doctor by profession. When the appellant was posted outside Jammu at different places he could not utilized the clinic. In the year 2006 when he was posted at Jammu he replaced the roof of the clinic which had been badly damaged and was leaking profusely. At the same time the appellant constructed a underground water tank to cater the needs of his family members. Both the activities were carried out without seeking any permission from the respondent. 2. On 14.11.2006 the respondent served a final notice for demolition of the clinic and closing down the underground water-tank, upon which the appellant filed the present appeal. 3. In the appeal, it is alleged that final notice is illegal because no show cause notice was earlier served upon the appellant. It is further stated that final notice is silent as to the nature of the violation, its size and location of the construction as to whether it is on ground floor or 1st floor. 4. As per the appellant he was in dire need of repair of the roof of the clinic which remained closed for years together, so he replaced the roof with RCC slab which does not amount to violation of the Building Operation Controlling Authority Act. 5. So far the case of the respondent is concerned, it is highlighted in the detailed objection-cum-report dated 21.8.2007 signed by Chief Enforcement Officer Municipal Corporation Jammu. As per this report the appellant has raised the construction over the existing shops in the front set back of the plot area without obtaining any permission from the BOCA. 6. It is further alleged that appellant was to keep 26 feet front set back but instead he has raised the construction in the front portion of the set back area which is in violation of Building Operation Regulation and can be termed a major violation which is not compoundable. 7. 6. It is further alleged that appellant was to keep 26 feet front set back but instead he has raised the construction in the front portion of the set back area which is in violation of Building Operation Regulation and can be termed a major violation which is not compoundable. 7. The construction of the under ground water tank without obtaining permission is also projected in the report which is termed as violation of the J&K Control of Building Operation Act 1988. It is further alleged that as per Master Plan the building line from the centre line of the road was to be kept at 40 feet whereas the offending structure is only 30 feet away from the centre of the road which is a major violation and cannot be compounded. 8. It is further claimed in the report that land use is only for residential purpose whereas the appellant has constructed a commercial hall on the 1st floor which is a major violation and cannot be compounded. 9. The built up area constructed illegally and un-authorizedly by the appellant has been worked out as under:- Built up area on the first floor =759 sft. Built up area of under-ground tank. =48.5 sft. 10. I have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and examined the record minutely. 11. Re-iterating the grounds adopted in the memo of appeal Mr. K.K.Jandial on behalf of appellant has inter alia argued that re-roofing does not amount to erection or re-erection and as such required no permission from the concerned Authority. In support of his argument he cited a judgment titled Pawan Kumar Vs. Executive Officer (OWP No: 844/95) decided by the High Court on 20.8.2001. . 12. Mr. Jandial further argued that appellant cannot be blamed for violation of front set back or constructing his house at a distance of 40 feet from the centre of the road because it was on account of duly sanctioned permission that the house and shops were constructed in the year 1975. He also argued that concept of front, back and sides set backs is alien when the construction is made on the 1st floor. 13. He also canvassed that in Gandhi Nagar area as per Master Plan 2001 commercial activities are permitted. In this regard he made a reference to clause 8.2 of the Master Plan at pages 14. As per Mr. 13. He also canvassed that in Gandhi Nagar area as per Master Plan 2001 commercial activities are permitted. In this regard he made a reference to clause 8.2 of the Master Plan at pages 14. As per Mr. Jandial, under professional establishments and nursing houses are permissible in Gandhi Nagar under the Master Plan, so running of a Clinic by appellant cannot be termed as major offence under the Control of Building Operation Act. Mr. Jandial further argued that Medico's Clinic is not a commercial activity and as such running of the clinic by the appellant does not violate the Master Plan. In support of his arguments he cited a judgment of Hon'ble High Court passed by Hon'ble Justice Parmod Kohli in OWP NO: 778/05 titled Building Operation Controlling Authority vs. Smt. Jyoti Singh and Anr. 15. To the contrary Mr. Gupta argued that even if the roof of the appellant's clinic was leaking on account of damage caused to it or he was in need of constructing an under ground water tank, he should have sought permission from the concerned Authority in which he has failed. He further argued that the clinic has been constructed and not only the roof has been replaced and even the same has been raised without leaving front set back which is a major violation. He however, failed to cite any judgment to the contrary, cited by Mr. Jandial. He also did not dispute the Master Plan according to which professional establishment and private nursing home can be set up in Gandhi Nagar area. 16. The first controversy which needs to be settled down is as to whether it is a clinic which has been constructed or roof has been replaced over the already existing structure on the 1st floor. As per Mr. Jandial the clinic already existed at the 1st floor which has been disputed by Mr. Gupta. 17. After going through the record submitted by respondent, it is noticed that on 3.11.2006 Khilafwarzi Officer during the round in Gandhi Nagar Jammu found that the appellant had started the construction work on the 1st floor over the existing shops without Municipal permission, which was got stopped on spot. The report was filed by the Khilafwarzi Officer upon which notice under Section 7(1) of COBO Act 1988 dated 4.11.2006 was directed to be served upon the appellant. The report was filed by the Khilafwarzi Officer upon which notice under Section 7(1) of COBO Act 1988 dated 4.11.2006 was directed to be served upon the appellant. As per the report of process server the notice was received by the appellant but failed to put signature on the notice. 18. The Khilafwarzi Officer, thereafter, also went to spot and with the assistance of police and demolished the construction raised by the appellant on the 1st floor and warned the appellant not to proceed with any construction without seeking proper permission. The Khilafwarzi Officer again went to spot on 7.11.2006 for making inspection of the site and found that appellant had started shuttering work which was got stopped. When the said officer went to spot again on 9.11.2006 he found that by that time the appellant had laid the slab during night hours. Finally on 11.11.2006 notice under Section 7(3) of COBO Act was served upon the appellant but he filed the present appeal and obtained the order of status quo. 19. These facts have not been rebutted by the appellant. He has taken up rather a false claim about the existence of clinic over the existing shops right from the year 1975 when permission was given to him to raise construction on ground floor. A copy of the site plan which has been submitted by the appellant does not indicate anywhere that he was authorized to construct a room/clinic on the existing shops. Thus it is held that the appellant has constructed a room over the existing shops without seeking any permission. 20. Now the question arises whether room has been constructed for residential or commercial use. The appellant has impliedly admitted that he is going to use room for running a clinic. As per judgment COBA vs. Smt. Jyoti Singh supra opening of Medico's clinic does not amount to commercial activity. Even as per Master Plan, which has been implemented in our State vide SRO No: 263 dated 9.8.2004(pages referred here-in-above), there is no ban for opening of professional establishment or nursing home in a residential area, as the same is for the benefit of public at large. In fact use of residential house to commercial use is prohibited. 21. Thus use of newly constructed room by appellant for use as clinic cannot be termed as major offence. 22. In fact use of residential house to commercial use is prohibited. 21. Thus use of newly constructed room by appellant for use as clinic cannot be termed as major offence. 22. Let us now see as to whether appellant was required to keep front set back or not. In fact the concept of set backs applies to ground floor and not to 1st floor. If there is no allegation of violation of requirement of set back on ground floor, same cannot leveled in respect of construction on 1st floor. 23. Similar view has been adopted in the judgment delivered by Justice Parmod Kohli on page 6 of the judgment referred here-in-above. 24. In fact in the case before the Hon'ble Justice Kohli permission had been granted for construction at the 1st floor. The question before the Hon'ble Justice was as to whether by not keeping set backs on 1st floor a major offence has been committed or not. The Hon'ble Justice has held that when permission has been granted for construction at 1st floor violation of front and rare set backs or 10% of the ground coverage is irrelevant. 25. In the present case permission has been granted to the appellant to construct a house on the ground floor and the construction has been made in conformity with the site plan submitted by the appellant. There is no allegation from the respondent that the construction on the ground floor has not been made in accordance with permission granted to the appellant. Thus there is no violation of set backs on the ground floor. If it is so violation by not keeping front set back on the 1st floor is irrelevant. 26. Although there is no allegation in the show cause notice that appellant has violated the Ribbon Development Act but the same has been leveled in the report submitted by respondent. As per the report the appellant had to keep distance of his house 40 feet away from the centre of the road whereas he has kept the distance of only 30 feet. As per site plan attached with the building permission, submitted by the appellant for constructing his house on ground floor, width of the road was 60 feet. In the site plan the house is shown at the distance of 30 feet from the centre of the road. As per site plan attached with the building permission, submitted by the appellant for constructing his house on ground floor, width of the road was 60 feet. In the site plan the house is shown at the distance of 30 feet from the centre of the road. With this distance the then sanctioning authority had permitted the appellant to construct his house. If it is so the appellant cannot be now said to have violated the Master Plan which came into force only in 2004. 27. This was of about the room constructed over the shops. Another allegation upon the appellant is that he has constructed under ground water tank without permission. This fact is also admitted by the appellant. 28. Thus the only violations which arise for consideration are the construction of room and under ground water tank. Both the constructions have been made without seeking permission from the respondent. 29. As discussed here-in-above no major offence has been committed by the appellant while constructing the room to be used as clinic over the existing shops. He has not kept any balcony over the road. He has not violated the criteria of the height of the building. Similarly, tank has been constructed in his own land by the appellant which does not violate any conditions laid down in the Master Plan. The violations are not covered by the definition of the major offence as defined in Building Operation Control Regulations. 30. As such violations are declared minor offences. A minor offence is compoundable by the fees prescribed by law. The area constructed unauthorisedly by the appellant has been worked out as 807.5 sft. The room although being used for running a clinic cannot be declared commercial activities as already held here-in-above by the Judgment delivered by Hon'ble Justice Kohli. So compounding fee has to be charged as for ordinary construction. The contention of Mr. Jandial that the appellant has only replaced the roof of the room is not tenable and as such the judgment cited by him to seek exemption of compounding fee is not applicable to the present case. Besides the ordinary compounding fee has also to be charged upon the appellant for constructing under ground water tank. 31. Accordingly the construction in question raised by the appellant is regularized by imposing compounding fee @ of Rs. 15/- per sft. Besides the ordinary compounding fee has also to be charged upon the appellant for constructing under ground water tank. 31. Accordingly the construction in question raised by the appellant is regularized by imposing compounding fee @ of Rs. 15/- per sft. which shall be deposited by the appellant with the respondent within a period of one month. 32. Record along with copy of this order be sent to JMC and file of this Tribunal be consigned to record after due compilation.