1. This appeal has been directed against notice no. MJ/Estt/162/CKO/2002 dated 20-11-2002, passed by respondent, by virtue of which appellant has been asked to demolish the unauthorized construction within a period of five days from the date of the service of the notice. 2. Appellant has challenged the notice impugned on the grounds that, the order impugned is against the law and facts of the present case, hence deserved to be set-aside. That the order impugned is against the principle of natural justice and also against the provisions of the J&K COBO Act. That neither show cause notice nor any opportunity of being heard has been given to the appellant, which was mandatory before passing the order u/s 7(3) of the J&K COBO Act. That no proceedings can be commenced without service of notice u/s 7(1) of the J&K COBO Act. That the respondent has a served a notice/order u/s 12(1) on the appellant on 21-06-2002 and no notice u/s 7(1) has been given to the appellant which was mandatory, the notice/order 12(1) is for discontinuing the construction and has nothing to do with demolition of Khailfwarzi, whereas the appellant has not raised any construction, all the construction, is old one and the appellant has not violated any provision of the Act. That the respondents want to demolish the porch and room, which is constructed by the appellant much before coming into existence of this Building Operation Act and no erection or re-erection has been effected by the appellant hence the order impugned deserved to be set aside. 3. Respondent has appeared through his counsel for prosecution and has also filed the objection stating that appellant has constructed porch unauthorisedly having dimension 15'-00" x 14'-00" in addition to the existing accommodation on the side back at ground floor and has also raised one room over the Porch without obtaining the building permission. Therefore, he has violated the control of the Building Operations Act of 1998 and the Building Bye-laws prescribed by the J&K Housing Board, Jammu Shastri Nagar Housing, Colony Jammu. 4. That the side set back earmarked for fire gap as well as air and light for the existing residential house has totally been covered un-authorizedly which construction. Therefore, the appellant has increased the built up area without obtaining the building permission which is a major violation. 5. 4. That the side set back earmarked for fire gap as well as air and light for the existing residential house has totally been covered un-authorizedly which construction. Therefore, the appellant has increased the built up area without obtaining the building permission which is a major violation. 5. That the appellant has continued the construction work of one room over the porch and has completed the construction during stay order. That the title of the land over which the construction has come up unauthorisedly could not be ascertained,because the appellant has not adduced the requisite documents in support his ownership rights on the land in question despite the repeated directives. 6. That the built up area involved under the construction raised un authorized has been worked out as under: a) Built up area of Porch = 210 sft b) Built up area of first floor = 210sft. 7. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the whole aspect of the matter and perused the record and memo of the appeal. 8. Title of land has been proved, because photo copy of registered sale deed dt 21.8.1976, reveals that, appellant has purchased land measuring 80feet by 40 ft situated at shasrti Nagar Jammu. 9. Now next question arises as to whether construction or Khailfwarzi is minor or major in nature. 10. Rules 10 and 11 of COBO.REULATIONS are necessary for deciding the matter. These reads ac 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. 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 violate the permissible front, rear or side set backs 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 laws. 11. Bare perusal of 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. 12. In present case construction of porch is not violation, of land use of area, because porch is a covered shelter projecting in front of the entrance of building or veranda or terrace. It is not the case of respondent that, it has been constructed for commercial purpose. 13. It is also not the case that, construction of room raised on porch has violated permissible height prescribed in bye laws. It is also not a case of respondent that construction so raised has covered more than permissible ground coverage. 14. Only objection is with regard to side set back. It has been stated that, no side set back embarked for fire gap as well as air has been covered. It is also not a case of respondent that construction so raised has covered more than permissible ground coverage. 14. Only objection is with regard to side set back. It has been stated that, no side set back embarked for fire gap as well as air has been covered. It amount to major violation in term of sub rule ii of clause 2 regulation 11. 15. At present, the alleged construction is complete. Therefore permitting demolition at this stage on the ground that, side set back has not been kept, will not be just and proper and will put the appellant to irreparable loss. Further alleged construction has been made in year 2002 and now it is 2012, it means one decade has passed. Porch is not covered from all side as it is not four walled structure. 16. Conduct of respondents is also not fair and honest, because, they allowed the appellant to complete the construction and thereafter served the notice. Had respondents been honest and vigilant, they would have stopped the construction at the initial stage. If, even then construction had not been stopped, respondents would have taken other steps mentioned in Act. 17. Therefore keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, I allow the appeal of the appellant and compound the violation of 420 sft, as reported by the respondents. Appellant is directed to pay Rs. 30/- per sft. as compounding fee for an area of 420 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