1. This is an appeal filed against the order of respondent dated 5.1.2012, by virtue of which appellant has been directed to dismantle the shuttering work of one hall on ground floor on municipal land situated at Jewel Chowak Jammu. 2. Appellant has stated in memo of appeal that, he is in occupation of plot of land situated at Dogra Chowk Jammu, behind Jewel Theater Jammu since from the last about 40 years. That appellant has also constructed six super structures over this plot of land. That some of the land in occupation of appellant was acquired by PWD Deptt. during construction of flyover and land measuring 2448 SQ Ft. is in occupation of the appellant. That appellant applied for regularization of land to Municipality and after depositing Rs. 5.00 lacs, land was regularized on his name of 29.5.2003. That a rent deed has also been executed between him and Municipal Corporation 3.6.2003. That appellant is regularly paying the stipulated rent top the Municipal Corporation. That super structure raised by appellant was having G.C. Sheets only at its roof and so were not safe. That appellant applied to respondent for replacing G.C.Sheets of roof with RCC slab. That Municipal Corporation granted permission on 14.1.2009 subject to harsh conditions. That, so appellant did not execute the agreement and accordingly on 26.6.2009 permission was withheld. That appellant was suffering due to unsafe roof and he again applied to respondent for permission to raise RCC slab on 18.2.2010. That he again on 21.9.2011 applied for permission. That appellant waited for stipulated period of 60 days but no rejection order was served. That appellant started raising RCC slabs on account of deemed permission. That on 29.12.2011 a show cause notice u/s 7 (1) of COBO Act was received. That appellant explained the circumstances in response to this notice. That again a final notice on 5.1.2012 was served upon appellant, whereby appellant has been directed to demolish the construction on spot. 3. Appellant has challenged this notice on the grounds that, it is illegal and against facts and is liable to be set aside. That appellant applied for permission to raise RC C slab but no rejection order has been served to the appellant. That there is no reason or justification in not allowing appellant to replace C.G. Sheets with RCC slab. 4. That appellant applied for permission to raise RC C slab but no rejection order has been served to the appellant. That there is no reason or justification in not allowing appellant to replace C.G. Sheets with RCC slab. 4. After filing the appeal, notice was issued to respondent and record was called. Respondent in his objection has stated that appellant is in illegal possession of land. That land was regularized after accepting the premium of Rs. 5.00 lacs subject to the condition that a formal agreement shall be executed between the parties. That instead of agreement, a rent deed was executed on 3.6.20003 for three yrs. And thereafter it was not extended. That appellant has failed to execute agreement, when permission was granted on 14.1.2009. That appellant again applied on 18.2.2010 and again case was placed before a authority and objection was raised that in absence of lease agreement building permission can not be granted. So appellant was again communicated to execute formal lease deed. It has also been stated in objection that appellant has constructed the building in violation of C O B O Act. 5. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the whole aspect of the mater. 6. Counsel for the appellant while arguing the matter has elaborated all the grounds taken in appeal. In addition he has also filed a rejoinder to the objections, in which it has been stated that conversion of GC sheet into RCC slab is not prohibited in master plan or any provision of law. That respondent was under legal obligation to grant permission within 60 days from the date of receipt of application, That appellant raised construction on deemed permission. Whereas respondent has supported the notices issued by the respondent for demolition. 7. In present case, it is fact that appellant has tried to raise construction without proper permission of respondent. Appellant has stated that, he raised construction on account of deemed permission, because no information with regard to rejection of his application for permission was intimated to him as per act. 8. Perusal of record of respondent,it reveals that vide order no.JMC/1096-2000 Dated 14.1.2009 permission to replace G.C.sheet with R.C.C. was granted to appellant subject to condition, this permission later on was withdrawn on 26.6.2009,as appellant failed to execute some agreement with respondent as per condition of permission. 9. Appellant again applied for permission for replacing G.C.sheet with R.C.C. sheet. 8. Perusal of record of respondent,it reveals that vide order no.JMC/1096-2000 Dated 14.1.2009 permission to replace G.C.sheet with R.C.C. was granted to appellant subject to condition, this permission later on was withdrawn on 26.6.2009,as appellant failed to execute some agreement with respondent as per condition of permission. 9. Appellant again applied for permission for replacing G.C.sheet with R.C.C. sheet. Record reveals that Senior Town planner and Div. Town planner of respondent recommended the case to Building permission committee of respondent for approval of permission on 4.5.2010. Thereafter permission file was placed before committee, but Chief Town Planner Town planning Organization, one of the member of Building permission committee did not consider the permission on the grounds that, appellant has not executed agreement with J.M.C. This order was passed on 3.6.2010. 10. Section 5 of COBO Act reads as under:- 5. Application for permission. (1) Every person desiring to obtain the permission, referred to in section 4 shall make an application in writing to the authority or through any agency authorized, in such form and containing such information as may be prescribed by regulations made under this Act. (2) The authority shall, within a period of 7 days of the receipt of application under sub-section (1) decline to accept a plan as sufficient for purposes of granting sanction under this Act if it does not bear the signature and seal of a Registered Architect or a Draftsman registered with the Authority. (3) On receipt of such application the authority, after making such enquiry as it considers necessary, keeping in view the area and the laws, rules and regulations applicable therein,. Shall by an order in writing, either grant the permission, subject to such conditions, if any, as may be s pecified in the order orr refuse to grant such permission, under the State Town Planning Act, 1963 or any Master Plan. (4) Where the permission is refused, the grounds of such refusal shall be communicated to the applicant in writing with a period of 30 days. 11. A plane reading of this section, it is evident that, whenever a application is made for permission, the authority after making such enquiry and keeping in view area and the laws rules and regulations applicable, shall by way of written order either grant the permission or refuse the permission. 11. A plane reading of this section, it is evident that, whenever a application is made for permission, the authority after making such enquiry and keeping in view area and the laws rules and regulations applicable, shall by way of written order either grant the permission or refuse the permission. In case of refusal of permission, this section cast upon the authority, a mandatory duty to communicate the refusal of such permission in writing within a period of 30 days to person concern. 12. In present case after going through all records, I find that there is no evidence from which it can be inferred that, refusal/non-consideration of permission for raising construction order dated.3.6.2010, was ever conveyed to appellant. In this way, a prejudice has been caused to the appellant, because his legal right under statue has been violated. 13. In view of what has been discussed above, this appeal is disposed off with a direction to respondent to consider the representation if file with regard to refusal/non consideration of his application for permission for laying RCC slab instead of GC sheet. The appellant shall file his representation within 10 days after serving the order of this Court to respondent. Respondent thereafter shall consider the representation within 30 days. Till the representation is considered and finally disposed of,both the parties shall maintain statusquo with regard to construction existing on spot. Record is sent back along with this order. 14. The file of this court is consigned to record.