1. This is an old appeal and directed against the notice of demolition issued on 11.3.1995 by the respondent and has been sought to be set aside on numerous grounds adopted in the memo of appeal, to which reference will be made here-in-after, at appropriate stage. 2. As per record received from respondent, Khilafwarzi officer on 30.1.1995 found appellant constructing a shop in front of his house constructed in plot No: 316-A Gandhi Nagar, without obtaining permission. Accordingly notice under Section 229 of old Municipal Act was issued on the same day by Chief Khilafwarzi officer asking the appellant, to show cause as to why the shop be not demolished. 3. The Khilafwarzi officer again went to spot on 31.1.1995 and noticed that appellant had completed the construction of shop. He recommended for filing of challan against the appellant. 4. Acting on recommendations, Secretary Municipality Jammu, filed a complaint under Section 225 of Municipal Act dated 31.1.1995, before Learned Special Municipal Magistrate Jammu against the appellant. 5. Thereafter the respondent vide notice dated 11.3.1995 under Section 229(3) of the Municipal Act,2008, asked the appellant to demolish the shop failing which same will be demolished. This notice was challenged before this Tribunal by appellant on the following grounds:- That appellant has constructed the shop strictly in accordance with the Municipalities Rules. That no show cause notice under Section 225 of Municipal Act was served upon the appellant, as such final demolition notice is without jurisdiction. That shop already existed on spot and appellant only made some minor repairs for letting out the same. 6. That the demolition notice has been issued only to harass the appellant. 7. The respondent produced the record along with detailed report of Khilafwarzi committed by the appellant. As per report appellant had constructed the shop on the set back kept for the residential plot without obtaining permission and also violated the land use of the approved Housing and Master plan which is only for residential purpose. That appellant had also extended projection measuring 21 sft over hanging the road. 8. This Tribunal after hearing the parties, disposed of the appeal on 10.1.1994 by imposing compounding fee @ Rs.40/- for the shop and Rs.30/- for balcony projection per sft, after holding that violation was minor. That appellant had also extended projection measuring 21 sft over hanging the road. 8. This Tribunal after hearing the parties, disposed of the appeal on 10.1.1994 by imposing compounding fee @ Rs.40/- for the shop and Rs.30/- for balcony projection per sft, after holding that violation was minor. This finding was challenged by respondent in the Hon'ble High Court which held that no ground for holding violation as minor has been indicated nor the question of constructing a shop in residential area or projection of balcony into a public lane has been examined by this Tribunal and remanded the case for disposal afresh after considering the observations referred above. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined the record minutely. 10. The learned counsel for appellant has submitted that present case is covered under Municipal Act and notices have been also issued under the said Act and as such J&K Municipal (Un-authorized Construction) Rules 1977 are applicable according to which balcony projection up to width of 2'-0" is permissible and as such appellant has not contravened said Rules, making liable the projection to be demolished. He further submitted that in Gandhi Nagar mixed use of land is permissible and as such appellant has not committed any major violation by constructing shop and in case of this shop compounding fee can be imposed as the same has been constructed without seeking any permission, which amounts to the commission of minor offence. 11. In fact in the present case report of Khilafwarzi officer dated 30.1.1995 is that appellant has constructed a shop without permission of the Jammu Municipality. This fact is also incorporated in the notice No: 115/21/KWO/95 dated 30.1.1995 under Section 229 of Municipal Act, asking appellant to demolish shop within 3 days. Later on Executive officer issued the impugned notice dated 11.3.1995 under Section 229(3) of the Municipal Act, 2008, asking the appellant to demolish shop within 7 days. In this notice there is no allegation that appellant has extended projection, hanging over the road or has constructed shop in the set back. But to the contrary this stand has been adopted in the report submitted by Executive Officer to this court, including the contravention of constructing shop in residential area. 12. In this notice there is no allegation that appellant has extended projection, hanging over the road or has constructed shop in the set back. But to the contrary this stand has been adopted in the report submitted by Executive Officer to this court, including the contravention of constructing shop in residential area. 12. As the impugned notice has been issued under old Municipal Act, so the J&K Municipal (Un-authorized Construction) Rules 1976, framed under the said Act are attracted and applicable to the present case. 13. By Rule-3, the appellate authority can compound offence committed by the appellant, provided the offence is of a minor nature and does not amount to serious violations of building bye-laws. As per this Rule, an offence shall be of minor nature, if a new structure is raised without having affected the right of way on roads/lanes by projecting floor projection more than 2' in width. 14. In the present case the allegation against appellant is about a projection overhanging the road. The area of projection has been worked out as 21 sft. In the report submitted by respondent, width of projection is not disclosed. In fact this is disclosed in the site plan of the un-authorized construction of shop, according to which width of projection is only 1'-6". As such projection being less than 2'-04is minor in nature and compoundable. 15. Now coming to the question of shop having been constructed in residential area, it is noticed that Rule 3 also defines minor offence in respect of change of land use. As per Sub-Rule(i) (e) of this Rule, raising of structure without having changed the land use of prescribed under any law for that area save as otherwise specified thereafter, will be offence of minor nature. 16. Similarly as per Sub-Rule (iv) land use changes of minor nature not causing nuisance of any sort to the adjacent locality by way of odour, smoke, noise pollution, dust etc. and without involving traffic and or any other problem is also a minor offence. 17. In the present case allegation against appellant is change of land use from residential to commercial by constructing a shop which according to respondent is prohibited under Master Plan and approved Housing Board Plan. 18. Now it is to be noticed whether land in Gandhi Nagar can be put to residential or mixed use? 19. 17. In the present case allegation against appellant is change of land use from residential to commercial by constructing a shop which according to respondent is prohibited under Master Plan and approved Housing Board Plan. 18. Now it is to be noticed whether land in Gandhi Nagar can be put to residential or mixed use? 19. As per Master Plan 2021, the land in Gandhi Nagar can definitely be put to mixed use i.e. for residential and commercial use. 20. Clause 8.2 of the Master Plan at pages 94-95 refers to the uses permitted in residential area, which reads as under:- "Residential (a) Uses Permitted: Dwelling of all types, guest houses, boarding houses, dharamshala, night shelter, rooming houses, customary home occupation, schools offering general educational courses, libraries, parks, playgrounds, golf courses, nurseries, green houses, and general purpose farms, churches, temples, mosques and other religious buildings, clubs, cultural an philanthropic associations of non-commercial nature, swimming pools for community use, professional establishments satisfying the requirements of some customary occupations and private nursing homes, convenience shopping, local shopping". 21. Once the Mater Plan permits use of commercial activity in the residential area like opening of shops, then objection of the respondent to the contrary carries no weight. Accordingly this objection is over ruled. Also the construction of shop is not alleged to have caused any nuisance to adjacent locality by way of odour, smoke, noise pollution and dust etc. and as such can be regularized by imposing compounding fee by declaring same as minor offence as per sub-rule (iv) of Rule 3 supra. 22. Accordingly this appeal is allowed and construction of shop and projections raised without permission by appellant is regularized by imposing compounding fee of Rs.40/- per sft.(for an area of 291 sft worked out in the report submitted by the respondent), which shall be deposited by appellant with the respondent within a period of two month. 23. 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.