1. Demolition notice dated 22.5.2008 issued by respondent asking the appellant to demolish the un-authorized construction of two excess floor, within 5 days, has been challenged in the present appeal on variety of grounds including the jurisdiction of the respondent to issue such notice. 2. As per the memo of appeal the Jammu Development Authority (here-in-after the JDA ) Jammu held open auction in the year 1989 for the sale of two plot measuring 5 Kanals-8 Marla's for hotel site near Exercise Toll Post Kranti Hotel Rail Head Complex Jammu. The appellant participated in the said auction and was declared successful bidder. He purchased the plot on payment of Rs. 2.66 corers. Subsequently the lease deed was executed between the appellant and the JDA. The JDA failed to handover the possession of the pots to the appellant whereupon he filed a writ petition in the Hon'ble High Court. The Hon'ble High Court was pleased to direct JDA to either handover the possession of the plots or refund the amount along with interest at the rate of 18 % per annum which forced the JDA to hand over the possession of plots to the appellant. 3. Thereafter, the appellant submitted a site plan for approval to the JDA for construction of the hotel on the said plots. After the grant of approval he started construction of the hotel. 4. It is claimed in the appeal that Municipal Corporation Jammu has no jurisdiction over the area falling in Rail Head Complex, but still it issued a notice dated 8.2.2008 asking him to demolish the unauthorized construction, which was duly replied by the appellant making aware the Municipal Corporation that it had no jurisdiction in the area but the JDA, which had duly permitted him to construct the hotel as per the proposed site plan submitted by him. 5. The impugned notice has been challenged on the following grounds:- A/- The notice is invalid because no show cause notice has been ever served upon the appellant B/- The appellant is raising construction in accordance with the approved site plan issued by the JDA and as such the notice impugned is not justified. C/- The respondent is confused as without looking into the plan sanctioned by the JDA, is considering mizzen and service floor as separate floors which in fact has been approved by the JDA. C/- The respondent is confused as without looking into the plan sanctioned by the JDA, is considering mizzen and service floor as separate floors which in fact has been approved by the JDA. D/- The site of construction does not fall within the Municipal Corporation and as such respondent has no jurisdiction to take action against the appellant. 6. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and examined the record submitted by the respondent. 7. The main thrust of the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant remained confined to the jurisdiction of the respondent over the land in question. He also placed on record the judgment of this Tribunal passed in appeal filed by the appellant against the JDA which had issued an order directing the appellant to stop the construction of the hotel. He sternly contended that in view of SRO 431 dated 24.12.2003 the Rail Head area has been excluded from the jurisdiction of Jammu Municipal Corporation. He also referred to letter no. CTP/JDA/1134-35 dated 27.1.2006 issued by Chief Town Planner JDA Jammu informing the Secretary Jammu Municipal Corporation that Rail Head area is not part of Jammu Municipal Corporation. Similarly he referred to other letters which will be taken note of at appropriate stage here-in-after. 8. It was further argued that without the site plan approved by JDA, being in possession with the respondent, it is not understandable as to how the respondent has come to the conclusion that appellant has raised some construction in violation of the approved site plan. 9. To the contrary learned counsel for the respondent has not disputed the existence of SRO 431 but inter alia submitted that a resolution was passed by Urban Transport Environment Employment Committee (UTEEC) under the Chairmanship of Divisional Commissioner Jammu on 6.12.2007 declaring that the Rail Head Area will be looked after by Jammu Municipal Corporation for purposes of according building approval and subsequent enforcement and as such JMC has jurisdiction over the Rail Head Area. He could not deny the plea of the appellant that land belonged to JDA and was auctioned in which the appellant was the successful bidder who later on executed lease deed with the JDA and also sought building permission from the JDA. 10. He could not deny the plea of the appellant that land belonged to JDA and was auctioned in which the appellant was the successful bidder who later on executed lease deed with the JDA and also sought building permission from the JDA. 10. According to him the appellant has violated the building permission to such a magnitude that the same amounts to major offence and cannot be compounded. 11. Rebutting the arguments, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that Government is only competent to bring any area within the jurisdiction of JMC and Resolution of the UTEIC headed by its Chairman has no statutory force and as such, JMC cannot claim jurisdiction over Rail Head area under the said Resolution. 12. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and examined the record meticulously. 13. In this case the main controversy between the parties is about the jurisdiction of the respondent to issue demolition notice. As such it is necessary first to decide this question of law and then to enter upon the merits of the case, if the same becomes necessary. 14. Admittedly the land belongs to JDA which was auctioned and allotted to the appellant who had offered highest bid. Similarly it is not that JDA had accorded sanction for building of the hotel by the appellant. It is also an admitted fact that hotel has been/ is constructed at Rail Head Jammu. It is also not disputed that appellant had filed an appeal against JDA in this Tribunal when the JDA after sanctioning building permission, started interfering in the construction of the hotel. Now it is to be seen as to whether Rail Head area is within the jurisdiction of JMC or not. How an area is to be brought within the jurisdiction of Municipal Corporation is prescribed by Section 4 of the J&K Municipal Act 2000. According to this Section the Government can by a Notification bring any local area within the jurisdiction of the Municipal Corporation. There was already one Notification issued under SRO 46 dated 18.2.2003. In suppression of this SRO, the Government issued a fresh Notification under SRO 431 ON 24.12.2003 defining the areas of Srinagar and Jammu Municipal Corporation. 15. After going through this SRO it is noticed the Rail Head area Jammu has not been brought within the jurisdiction of JMC. 16. There was already one Notification issued under SRO 46 dated 18.2.2003. In suppression of this SRO, the Government issued a fresh Notification under SRO 431 ON 24.12.2003 defining the areas of Srinagar and Jammu Municipal Corporation. 15. After going through this SRO it is noticed the Rail Head area Jammu has not been brought within the jurisdiction of JMC. 16. There is further a letter No:MCJ/Estt/10726-28 dated 10.1.2006 on the file according to which Secretary JMC sought an information from the Chief Town Planner JDA as to whether Rail Head area is within the jurisdiction of JMC or not. A reminder was again issued by the JMC vide letter No: MCJ/Estt/11012-14 dated 25.1.2006. There is another letter SLJ/J/97/2003 dated 10.2.2006 according to which Under Secretary to Government Housing and Urban Dev. Department intimated Chief Town Planner JDA sought clarification from Chief Town Planner JDA as to whether Rail Head complex is covered within Jammu limit as per SRO 431. Another letter is there bearing No:CTP/JDA/1134-35 dated 27.1.2006 by virtue of which Chief Town Planner JDA informed the Secretary JMC that Rail Head complex is not a part of JM C as per SRO 431. 17. After taking into consideration the SRO 431 and various correspondences referred above it has becomes crystal clear that Rail Head area does not fall within the jurisdiction of JMC. 18. Now the question arises what is the legal effect of Resolution passed by UTEIC on 6.12.2007. The Resolution points out that committee had decided that all areas within the MCJ including Rail Head were hence forth to be looked after by JMC for purposes of according building approval and subsequent enforcement. 19. The said Committee has no legal sanction or statutory powers to declare any area as part of any Municipal Corporation. It is only the Government which can exercise such right under Section 4 of the Municipal Act 2000. In view of the statutory provision of law contained in said Section 4, the Resolution supra has no legal force. The committee cannot by-pass or over ride the provision of Section 4. Even for argument sake it is presumed that Committee has such powers still the Resolution is prospective in nature. Meaning thereby that after 6.12.2007 building permission for Rail Head area can be granted by JMC. The committee cannot by-pass or over ride the provision of Section 4. Even for argument sake it is presumed that Committee has such powers still the Resolution is prospective in nature. Meaning thereby that after 6.12.2007 building permission for Rail Head area can be granted by JMC. But in the present case the appellant had already obtained building permission from JDA and had constructed the hotel well before 6.12.2007. 20. In this background the JMC cannot exercise any power under BOCA in respect of hotel of the appellant as the JMC lacks jurisdiction over the Rail Head Area. Whether the appellant has constructed the hotel in accordance to the site plan, it has no jurisdiction to issue demolition notice or to interfere in the construction raised by the appellant. Such authority can at the most be with the JDA. 21. Accordingly this appeal is allowed and the demolition notice issued by the respondent is quashed. 22. Record of the court below be sent back along with copy of this order and file of this Tribunal be consigned to record after due compilation.