1. In this appeal demolition notice dated 16.1.2002 issued by respondent No:1 has been challenged by virtue of which the appellant has been asked to demolish the unauthorized construction within a period of 5 days, with the prayer for setting aside the same on the ground mentioned in the memo of appeal. 2. The record discloses that in the year 1975 one Bindra Ban the father-in-law of the appellant purchased a building consisting of shops and rooms situated at Canal Road near Jewel Chowk Jammu. In the year 1979 Bindra Ban partitioned the said building amongst his three sons and also retained a portion for his own use. Later on during his life time Bindra Ban gifted other portion of the building to the husband of the appellant. The husband of the appellant died in the month of October 2007. 3. In the year 1993 Bindra Ban, the father-in-law of appellant obtained permission from Jammu Municipality for re-roofing of shops which was duly sanctioned. 4. After the death of the husband of the appellant she came into possession of the portion of the building belonging to her husband. As per the appellant two rooms existing on 1st floor were in dilapidated condition so she laid down the fresh slab, which does not amounts to erection or re-erection, but the respondent No:2 served a show cause notice dated 22.12.2008 upon which she appeared before respondent No:1 and explained the position existing on spot. 5. In this notice, it was alleged that appellant had constructed two small rooms and Veranda on 1st floor over the existing shops without any permission. 6. According to appellant the respondent No:1 paid no heed to the explanation tendered by her and served a final notice dated 16.1.2009 asking her to remove the unauthorized construction. 7. Aggrieved by this notice the appellant preferred the present appeal. Along with the appeal the appellant has annexed the copies of sale deed, partition deed, gift deed, permission order for re-roofing of shops along with a site plan prepared at relevant time. 8. The respondents have filed objections to the CMP in which a different stand has been adopted, to which reference will be made at appropriate stage. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined the record minutely. 10. 8. The respondents have filed objections to the CMP in which a different stand has been adopted, to which reference will be made at appropriate stage. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined the record minutely. 10. After going through the site plan annexed with the sale deed of the year 1975, it is noticed that shops in question already existed much prior to sale deed. Similarly it is notice from the site plan sanctioned by the Municipality Jammu in the year 1993 for re-roofing of shops that shops in their old conditions already existed on spot. 11. Despite these facts the respondent in their objection have stated that appellant has committed major violation by constructing the structure at the distance of 33'-6" instead of 60 feet from the centre line of the road. It is further stated that no rear set back has been kept by the appellant. It is next stated that appellant has covered 100% of the plot area instead of permissible 65% and has further extended balcony projection hanging over the road to the extent of 30'18sft. 12. So for present violation is concerned it is stated that appellant has raised the construction of hall and stair case on 1st floor on the existing shops on ground floor. The unauthorized construction has been worked out to the tune of 486.26 sft. 13. When objections of respondent are compared with the rest of the record submitted by them, the same are inconsistent and contradictory to each other. As per the report of Khailfwarzi Officer dated 20.12.2008 when he went to spot he found the appellant constructing two small rooms and veranda over 1st floor without any permission. It is this report upon which show cause notice was issued to the appellant. 14. After going through the note at page 1 of the file submitted by the respondents, it is indicated that Khailfwarzi officer on 26.12.12008 had visited the spot and found that appellant was carrying out the shuttering work of two small rooms and veranda. A note put on 3.9.2001 indicates, by that time the appellant had laid down the slab. There is no mention of constructing a hall and stair case by the appellant. A note put on 3.9.2001 indicates, by that time the appellant had laid down the slab. There is no mention of constructing a hall and stair case by the appellant. This fact has only been mentioned in the objections supra which is silent to the construction of two rooms and veranda on 1st floor or laying down of slab over them. 15. After taking into consideration the above stated facts, it is manifest that shops on the ground floor already existed prior to the year 1975. Even this fact is endorsed by Jammu Municipality while giving permission to the father-in-law of the appellant in 1993 to change the roof of the shops. In the year 1975 Control of Building Operation Act was not in force nor was there any master plan. Thus the objections of the respondent that appellant has committed major offence by constructing shops in the area more than permissible limit and kept no rear set back or has not kept the shops 60 feet away from the centre line of the road are required to be rejected. 16. Control of Building Operation Act and Master Plan are not retrospective in nature and cannot be applied to the building which have come into existence prior to their own existence. 17. The present dispute between the parties has been noticed already. The appellant claims that she had only laid down the slab on the existing rooms on 1st floor. The respondents on the other hand have taken contradictory stand about the nature of the construction on 1st floor. The raising of hall and stair case on 1st floor has surfaced in the objection only, which is not supported by the material collected by the respondent. 18. As per the report of Khailfwarzi Officer dated 20.12.2008 which was prepared after visiting the spot, the appellant had only raised two small rooms and veranda on 1st floor without any permission. This report being first in time carries weight. The Khailfwarzi officer has also prepared a rough sketch which also indicates the construction of rooms and veranda on 1st floor. The learned counsel for the respondents has not able to explain as to how in the objections the respondents have made reference to the construction of hall and stair on the 1st floor. The Khailfwarzi officer has also prepared a rough sketch which also indicates the construction of rooms and veranda on 1st floor. The learned counsel for the respondents has not able to explain as to how in the objections the respondents have made reference to the construction of hall and stair on the 1st floor. As noticed earlier a note prepared by Khailfwarzi Officer on 26.12.2008 also proves that appellant has constructed two rooms and veranda on 1st floor. This fact has not been denied by the appellant by filing rejoinder to the objection filed by respondent. Thus the only violation which has been committed by the appellant is raising of two small rooms and veranda on 1st floor without any building permission. 19. In respect of projection claimed by respondent over the road, it is sufficient to say that this portion being part of the slab laid down in 1993 has remained in existence since then. The respondents have not served, otherwise , any show cause notice to the appellant about such projection nor the Khailfwarzi Officer has made any complaint about such projection in his report dated 20.12.2008 and 26.12.2008. So there is no satisfactory evidence that this projection has been raised by the appellant in 2008. 20. Thus the only violation which remains for consideration is unauthorized construction of two rooms and veranda on 1st floor. There is no mention of any other violation in the show cause notice nor it is alleged that appellant has raised any other construction after the filing of the appeal. As such this unauthorized construction is compoundable as contemplated by Regulation 11 of J&K Control of Building Operation Regulation 1998. 21. Accordingly the construction in question is regularized by imposing compounding fee @ 14/- per sft. for 486.26 sft. which shall be deposited by the appellant with the respondents within a period of two months. 22. Record of the JMC be sent back along with copy of this order and file of this Tribunal be consigned to record after due compilation.