1. Pursuant to issuance of notice under section 7(1) of J&K Control of Building Operation Act 1988 (COBO Act) by respondent followed by threat of demolition of the construction raised by appellant under deemed permission, this appeal has been preferred by appellant for setting aside the same on number of grounds. 2. The facts necessary for disposal of the appeal as adumbrated in memo of appeal are as under:- Appellant purchased 2 kanals 19-1/2 Marlas of land under khasra No: 384 situated in Channi Rama Jammu in the year 2004 by three different sale deeds. The commercial construction in shape of structures and pillars already existed in the said land, which was raised by vender after obtaining building permission in the year 1989. When the respondents started interfering in the construction even after approving site plan, the erstwhile owner filed a writ before Honble High Court at Jammu. When respondents submitted report that construction has been raised in accordance with law and site plan, the writ was disposed of as withdrawn with direction that in case respondents makes any attempt to interfere in the construction, petitioners therein are at liberty to approach the court. 3. After purchasing land, appellant submitted a fresh site plan for approval to respondents, vide No: 496/BS/05 dated 27.1.2005. The copy of receipt of site plan dated 29.1.2005, issued by respondent is annexed as Annexure-D. Upon the instruction of respondents, the appellant obtained NOCs from various departments and submitted same to the respondents. These are enclosed as Annexure E to J. The respondent No. 2 also sought remarks from Assistant Commissioner Nazool to be furnished within 30 days, vide a letter which is enclosed as Annexure-K. 4. Being in receipt of all necessary documents, the respondents failed to accord sanction despite the expiry of the statutory period of sixty days. Appellant thus presumed that after expiry of said period and without any intimation of refusal to sanction, site plan for commercial construction is required to be deemed to have been sanctioned. But to the utter surprise of appellant, respondents at the behest of some persons, made an attempt to demolish the existing structure raised by appellant, whereupon he filed a suit for permanent injunction against respondents, in the court of learned Sub-Judge (Municipal ) Jammu. The court passed interim order in favour of appellant. But to the utter surprise of appellant, respondents at the behest of some persons, made an attempt to demolish the existing structure raised by appellant, whereupon he filed a suit for permanent injunction against respondents, in the court of learned Sub-Judge (Municipal ) Jammu. The court passed interim order in favour of appellant. When the respondents filed written statement they disclosed therein that notice under Section 7(1) of COBO Act stands issued to appellant where upon the appellant filed this appeal. 5. As per appeal no such notice was received by the appellant neither copy of such notice had been annexed with the written statement. Later on when appellant made enquiry he came to know that such notice has been issued by respondent No:3 on 5.9.2008 and challenged the same by preferring present appeal, solely on the ground that respondent No:3 has no jurisdiction to issue such notice. 6. The respondents have filed detailed report which is signed by respondent No. 2 along with record. In the report following stand has been adopted by the respondents. 7. The Chief Town Planner (Member Secretary) of Urban Transport Environment Improvement Committee (UTEIC) Jammu vide letter No. CJPJ/TIAC/2004-05/541-49 dated 7.2.2005 forwarded the set of blue prints of building permission of complex of Smt. Suman Daluja to IGP Jammu Range, IGP Traffic, Vice Chairman JDA, Administrator JMC, S.P. Security, SSP Traffic and D.C. Jammu. 8. When the blue prints of building plan was forwarded to JMC by UTEIC, a spot inspection was made jointly and measurements were taken by Technical Assistant and Surveyor on 30.9.2009. 9. During inspection it was noticed that proposed construction was already existing for last 15 years. The ground floor has been constructed in the area measuring 8890 sft, whereby permissible area is 8684 sft. which comes to 53.6% as compared to permissible 40% of ground coverage as per Master Plan. There is no violation of permissible set backs. The appellant has raised construction on the land and JDA, Revenue Department and Nazool Department have not yet verified title of land and UTEIC has kept the case pending for want of verification of title of land. 10. In its own report, to UTEIC, JMC submitted that it has no objection to the proposed construction provided the space earmarked for parking would exclusively be used for said purpose. 11. 10. In its own report, to UTEIC, JMC submitted that it has no objection to the proposed construction provided the space earmarked for parking would exclusively be used for said purpose. 11. In UTEICs meeting on 3.2.07, number of pending cases were discussed but no decision was taken on the building permission case of appellant Suman Daluja. 12. Along with record NOCs issued by all the Department, referred here-in-above, as well as impugned notice dated 5.9.2008 along with other relevant document have been submitted by the respondents. 13. It is pertinent to note that during pendency of the appeal JDA, Jammu filed an application on 10.7.2009 for being arrayed as party. Objection to same were filed by appellant on 30.x.2009. On 12.11.2009, counsel for JDA was absent, whereupon the application was dismissed for default of appearance. The arguments were heard in the main appeal and mater adjourned to 16.11.2009 for order. During the arguments the ld. Counsel for the appellant produced copy of report of JDA Patwari according to which the land in respect of which the JDA claims right in itself and alleged to have been encroached by the appellant is some other land which is adjacent to the land belonging to the appellant and is open on spot. 14. However, JDA filed restoration application, which was allowed on 16.11.2009 and application for arraying as party was adjourned to 17.11.2009. The learned counsel for intervener failed to appear on 17.11.2009 and to subsequent date on 20.11.2009, whereupon application was again dismissed for default of appearance and case adjourned for orders. 15. During the course of arguments, Mr. Jain submitted that after expiry of period of sixty days, permission will be deemed to have been granted by respondent No:3 and as such no notice as envisaged by section of BOCA can be issued upon appellant. In respect of ownership of land, he submitted that appellant had submitted copies of sale deeds to the respondents, which are in the record submitted by respondents and pending of case with UTEIC for verification of title by JDA and Revenue Department is just an excuse to cause harassment to appellant, at the hands of some vested interest. He submitted that ground coverage is covered under regulation 11 of the Control of Building Regulations which is as such minor in nature and can be compounded. 16. Per contra, Mr. He submitted that ground coverage is covered under regulation 11 of the Control of Building Regulations which is as such minor in nature and can be compounded. 16. Per contra, Mr. Gupta submitted that even if permission is deemed to have been granted, still the appeal is required to be dismissed as appellant has covered the ground floor in excess of the permissible area as per Master Plan. 17. Taking the facts of the case on its face value, it is manifest that appellant submitted the fresh site plan for sanction to respondent No.3, as is borne out from the Annexure-D issued by Town Planner Jammu of JMC dated 27.1.2005. NOCs including JDA and JMC Jammu, marked as Annexure E to K, are not disputed. The appellant claims to have collected same which fact is also not disputed. Even in the detailed report submitted by respondent No: 2, these facts are admitted. But till date no decision has been taken by BOCA. 18. The law relating to the grant of building permission is contained in Control of Building Operation Act, 1988 (hereinafter as COBO Act) which was enforced with the object of consolidating the law relating to control of building operations in the State. Section 3 of this Act permits the Government to appoint Authorities to administer the provision of COBO Act, in respect of Municipal area, local area, Town area and notified areas. Authorities as such came to be constituted under Regulation No: 3 of Control of Building Operation Regulations, 1998. These Regulations were incorporated by the Government in exercise of powers conferred under Section 19 of COBO Act. These Regulations inter alia provide the procedure for filing of application for grant of building permission and the follow up action to be taken by the concerned Authority. 19. Section 4 of COBO Act, forbids erection of any building in any area except with the previous permission of Authority of the said Area, in writing. Said section further provides that person desiring to obtain the permission shall file an application to the concerned Authority, containing such information as prescribed by Regulations made under COBO Act, with liberty to decline within seven days, sanction, if it does not bear signatures and seal of a Registered Architect or a Draftsman registered with the Authority. In other cases the Authority after making necessary enquiry may either grant or refuse the permission. In other cases the Authority after making necessary enquiry may either grant or refuse the permission. Where permission is refused, the grounds of refusal have to be conveyed to applicant in writing within a period of 30 days. 20. Regulation 4 supra, makes compulsory the filing of an application for permission in Form A to the Chairman of the concerned Authority, accompanied by the documents mentioned therein and other details thereof. Under Regulation 5, the site has then to be got inspected by a person authorized by the Government or by the Authority. As per Regulation No.7 the Chairman has to place the application and building plan along with report of Inspector before the Authority for its consideration. This Regulation mandates the Authority to decide application within a maximum period of sixty days from the date of submission of application and in case no decision is taken within the said period, the permission shall be deemed to have been accorded by the Authority. 21. So for present case is concerned, it has not been denied by respondents that appellant filed an application along with proposed construction before the concerned Authority for Jammu Municipal Corporation, on 27.1.2005. Moreover, there is receipt (Annexure-D) of the application on record. This application was supposed to be decided, within sixty days. It is also not denied that application was not accompanied by the required documents. From the record it is further established that all the concerned Departments have issued No objection Certificates including JDA and JMC Jammu, to the proposed construction by the appellant. Even till date no decision has been taken by the Authority for JMC i.e. for a period of more than four years, either granting or refusing permission. 22. Thus the irresistible conclusion which can be drawn is that permission shall be deemed to have been granted by the respondent No.3 to the appellant. This conclusion is strictly in accordance of Regulation No.7, referred here-in-above. 23. In this background if appellant completed construction after presuming under law that building permission is deemed to have been accorded, the appellant cannot be blamed for having raised such construction without permission. Once it is so held then respondents had no jurisdiction to issue notice dated 5.9.2008 under Section 7 of COBO Act, which contemplates issuance of such notice in case of erection or re-erection of any building without permission referred to in Section 4. 24. Once it is so held then respondents had no jurisdiction to issue notice dated 5.9.2008 under Section 7 of COBO Act, which contemplates issuance of such notice in case of erection or re-erection of any building without permission referred to in Section 4. 24. Accordingly contention of appellant is upheld that she constructed the building under deemed permission. 25. Of course it is to be seen as to whether any violation of building laws or Master Plan has been committed by the appellant or not. In deciding this question, Regulation No.11 has to be taken into consideration. 26. Said Regulation lays down that erection of building under deemed permission or in violation of regular permission shall be considered as minor offence if such erection does not violate approved land use as notified in Master Plan or Town Planning Scheme; permissible front, rear or side backs; by more than 10% of the permissible ground coverage; permissible height of the building as prescribed in the bye-laws. 27. As per said Regulation minor offence can be compounded by this Tribunal by directing payment of prescribed fee. 28. As noticed earlier appellant is alleged to have violated only the permissible ground coverage which according to the respondents is not minor offence and as such not compoundable. 29. As per detailed report on page 2 it is stated that appellant has covered the area of 8890 sft. Instead of the permissible area of 8684sft. Thus the excess area covered comes to 206 sft. As per Regulation No.11, 10% increase of the permissible ground coverage is minor offence. 10% of 8890 sft comes to 889 sft. But in present case it is only 206 sft, which is definitely more less than 10%. As such appellant has only committed a minor offence to the extent of 206 sft, which can be compounded. 30. As the violation is in respect of commercial building so the same is regularized by imposing compounding fee of Rs.45/-sft. for 206 sft, which shall be deposited with respondents within a period of sixty days. 31. With these observation appeal is disposed off. 32. 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.