1. This appeal has been directed against the notice dated 27th October, 2011 issued u/s (7) 3 of COBO Act, for dismantling the hall constructed on second floor at hot Billion Restaurant Rehari Chungi Jammu. 2. Appellant has stated in appeal that, he is owner of premises and a restaurant under the name and style M/S Hot Billions comprising of ground floor, fist floor and second floor has been constructed there on. That this portion has fallen in share of appellant in term of family settlement executed among family members on 2.11.2005. In the month of April,2011 he undertook some interior wooden work, flooring, renovation and wall tiling at first and second floor as same had became indispensible with long wear and tear by public user. That appellant in the month of May, 2011, was served with a notice u/s (7) (1) of COBO Act, with regard to Khailfwarzi of renovating ground floor and first floor, raising of third floor on said building and developing of cracks to adjoining buildings due to erecting of third floor. That appellant undoes the construction work so raised on it own. That respondent issued a notice on 6.6.2011 for clearing the Malwas/ debris of the demolished construction work. 3. That the notice dated 12.5.2011 issued u/s 7(1) of COBO act was not fallowed by final notice u/s 7 of act. That, it seems that vested interest operating against the restaurant of appellant were not contended with the eatery business of appellant doing so good, troubled the appellant by forcing the respondents to issue notice u/s 7 (1) of COBO Act dt. 10.10.2011, stating that appellant has started the construction work of hall without permission. Appellant visited the respondents and explained the position that he has laid even a single brick for the alleged construction, so called hall at second floor. Appellant invited the respondent NO. 3 to visit personally to check the site. However, respondent instead of undoing the mistake issued final notice without verifying the actual position on spot. 4. Appellant has challenged the impugned notice on the ground that, construction is of being initiated long backs and nothing new has been constructed and only minor repairs has been done. That minor repair and renovation done by the appellant is in alignment with other building structures. That repair effected by appellant has not violated any provision of Ribbon Dev Act, Master plan etc. That minor repair and renovation done by the appellant is in alignment with other building structures. That repair effected by appellant has not violated any provision of Ribbon Dev Act, Master plan etc. That appellant has not violated any approved master plan 5. After filing of appeal respondents were called and were directed to submit record and Khailfwarzi. 6. In Para No. 4 and 5 of objection/report fallowing Khailfwarzi has been mentioned; "3. That the appellant has raised the construction without seeking the permission from JMC. The total plot area is 4800 Sqfts and the appellant has covered 621 Sqft. (New construction) area at second floor. 5. That the built up area raised unauthorizedly has been worked as under; Total plot are = 4800 Sft. New construction at Second floor = 621 Sft. The total violation is = 621 Sft. 7. I have heard both counsels at length. I have also gone through relevant law touching the matter. 8. Rules 10 and 11 of COBO REGULATIONS are necessary for deciding the matter. These reads as under :- 10. Appeals (1) An appeal against the order of the Authority made under section 5 and 7 of the Act shall lie before the Chairman of the J&K Special Tribunal or such other Member of the said Tribunal as may be decided by the same Chairman. 11. The Appellate Authority may compound an offence of a minor nature specified in sub clause (2) of these Regulations; Provided that the compounding fee shall be worked out on the basis of rates to be notified by the Government. (2) For the purpose of these Regulations an offence of a minor nature shall include any erection or re-erection of the b building which has taken place in violation of permission referred in section 4 of the Act or deemed permission as referred in Sub-clause (2) of clause (7) of these Regulations provided that such erection or re-erection: (i) does not violate the approved land use of area as notified in the Master Plan or Town Planning Scheme; (ii) does not violatet the permissible front, rear or side set bacls prescribed in the bye laws: (iii) does not violate by more than 10% the permissible grounds coverage a prescribed in the bye laws : and (iv) does not violate the permissible height of the building as prescribed in the bye laes. 9. 9. Bare perusal these regulations, it is evident that this Court can compound construction /Khailfwarzi of minor in nature. For the purpose of offence of minor in nature with regard to construction, so raised in violation section- 4 COBO Act means that construction, shall not violate the approved land use of area as notified in Master plan or Town planning Scheme, secondly it does not violate permissible front rear or side set back prescribed in bye-laws and thirdly it does not violate more than 10% permissible ground coverage as prescribed in the bye-laws and lastly does not violate permissible height of building as prescribed in bye-laws. 10. Paragraph 6.9.11 at page 81 of the said Master Plan JAMMU 2021, it specifically provides that B.C.Road area is earmarked as special area to be developed as a mixed use Zone having residential, commercial, light industry institutional and other uses. 11. Further in AIR 2005 SC 2578 case title Kewal Krishan gupta v. J&K Special Tribunal at para 16, it is held as under:- Para No. 16 Finally, part from these reasons for which the impugned judgment is liable to be faulted, our attention was drawn by the learned counsel for the appellant to notification dated 9.8.2004 SRO 263 issued by the Commissioner and Secretary to Govt. of Jammu and Kashmir by which the Master Plan for Jammu: 2021 has been published. Paragraph 6.9.11 at page 81 of the said Master Plan specifically provides that B.C.Road area is earmarked as special area to be developed as a mixed use Zone having residential, commercial, light industry institutional and other uses. The phase of rapid growth of industrial development also makes it unnecessary for permitting demolition of the structure even it been contravention of the provisions of the Act or the zoning provisions in the previous Master Plan considered from all angles, it appears that High Court need not have taken an activist role in directing demolition of the offending structure which had been permitted to be compounded by the competent authority, namely the Tribunal. 12. So present case does not fall under 2(1) of regulation 11 as there is no violation of land use. 13. Construction up to first floor is already exiting on spot because respondent has admitted in the report that these are old construction. Respondent has not stated that construction already existing is in violation of regulations. 14. 12. So present case does not fall under 2(1) of regulation 11 as there is no violation of land use. 13. Construction up to first floor is already exiting on spot because respondent has admitted in the report that these are old construction. Respondent has not stated that construction already existing is in violation of regulations. 14. Permissible construction as per master plan for 2nd floor as mentioned in report of respondent is 2880 sqft., whereas appellant has constructed 621 sqft on second floor. So there is no violation to this aspect. As per report permissible height of building should be 40.9 feet, whereas appellant has raised height up to 33 feet as per report, so there is no violation with regard to permissible height. Report reveals that there is no violation with regard to set backs except other side. So all Khailfwarzi can be termed as of minor in nature as provided in regulation 11 of COBO regulations. 15. Further at this stage the alleged construction is complete and appellant is doing business in whole building, including alleged construction. Therefore permitting demolition at this stage will not just and proper and will put the appellant to irreparable loss. 16. Conduct of respondents is also not fair and honest, because they allowed the appellant to complete the building on second and thereafter served the notice. Had respondents been honest and vigilant, they would have stopped the construction at the initial stage. 17. Therefore keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, I allow the appeal of the appellant and compound the violation of 621 sft as reported by the respondents. Appellant is directed to pay Rs. 60/- per sft. as compounding fee for an area of 621 sft. to the respondents within a period of 2 months from today. Record along with copy of order be sent back. 18. The file of this court be consigned to record after due completion.