1. This appeal has been directed against the order NO. MJ/CEO/39/03/2011 dated 28-04-2011 passed by respondent, by virtue of which appellant has been directed to demolish the authorized construction /violation raised at Vijay nagar Talab Tillo, within a period of five days from the date of the service of this notice. 2. During the pendency of this appeal one Mst. Nandi Devi filed an application for impleadment her as party on 6.6.2011. Interim order dated 2-12-2011, reveals that appellant's counsel appraised this court that, Intervener Mst. Nandi Devi has expired and so her application was dismissed on 17.2.2012. 3. The appellant has challenged the order impugned in this Tribunal on the grounds that, appellant is a senior citizen, retired Government employee and law abiding citizen possess command and respect among the people from all walks of life. That the appellant after full filling and completing all the formalities applied for permission to respondent and respondent vide no. 1398/BS/2010 dated 07-02-2011 granted the permission for construction, but now appellant has to cause only renovation in room already in existence to make it habitable on account of marriage of appellant's sons. That on 30th of April, 2011 in the evening a copy of notice was seen in the lawn abandoned. The appellant got astonished to read the notice which is vague, cryptic, hypothetical speculative and without any force of law, as the no show cause notice even served upon the appellant. That the respondent or Joint commission JMC absolutely has not authority to cancel the site plan already sanction that too on the basis of alleged saying of the people of the locality. That the no opportunity of being heard was afforded to the appellant which is against the principle of natural justice. 4. That the impugned notice is not based upon any reality. It is a sheer frustration, where notice impugned has been issued after and half month of sanction of plan. That Nandi Devi does not possess, own or enjoy any status in respect of landed property where the construction raised, or otherwise, how the people of adjoining areas are concerned with the property of appellant of so called Nandi Devi. 5. Notice of this appeal was issued and served upon the respondent. 6. That Nandi Devi does not possess, own or enjoy any status in respect of landed property where the construction raised, or otherwise, how the people of adjoining areas are concerned with the property of appellant of so called Nandi Devi. 5. Notice of this appeal was issued and served upon the respondent. 6. Respondent has appeared through his counsel and filed objections stating therein that, the appellant has obtained the permission from JMC vide Order No. 1398/BS/2010 dated 07-20-2011 and the permission granted by the JMC has been withdrawn vide No. 834/BS/2010 dated 05-03-2011 on the complaints that the construction in question is raised is raised on the land of Nandi Devi. In spite of order No. 834/BS/2010 dated 05-03-2011, the appellant has raised the construction of one room, Dress Toilet and Verandah by covering an area of 520 sft, in Khasra No. 385, Vijay Nagar, Talab Tillo, and Jammu. Thus the respondent issued the show cause notice under section 7(1) and 12(1) of COBO Act on 24-01-2011 on the report submitted by the Enforcement Officer on 22-01-2011 to discontinue the operation of unauthorized construction. 7. That the appellant has not filed any reply to the notice under Section 7(1) and 12(1) of COBO Act. Thus the final notice/order u/s 7(3) of J&K COBO Act was issued on 28-04-2011 and served on 30-04-2011 to the appellant/violator, wherein the violator was directed to demolish the unauthorized construction/violation as detailed in the notice/ order u/s 7(3) of the Act within five days failing which the same would be demolished at his own risk and cost. 8. That the appellant has raised the construction without seeking the permission from JMC. The total area is 16334 sft and the appellant has raised new construction of 520 sft area at ground floor. That the permission aforesaid was withdrawn by the JMC on the complaint filed by Nandi Devi. That the land over which the appellant has raised the construction belongs to Nandi Devi as per the record submitted by Nandi Devi, the construction aforesaid cannot be compounded on this point that, the appellant is not the owner of land over which he has raised construction authorisedly. 9. That the appellant has raised the construction in contravention to the provision of the J&K COBO Act 1988, J&K COBO Regulation 1998 and prescribed bye-law and Master Plan. 10. 9. That the appellant has raised the construction in contravention to the provision of the J&K COBO Act 1988, J&K COBO Regulation 1998 and prescribed bye-law and Master Plan. 10. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the whole aspect of the matter and gone through the appeal and record available in the file. 11. I have also considered the rival contentions of both the counsel. 12. Appellant's counsel has strongly argued that the permitting demolition will put the appellant, a retired Government employee who has played his inning of life while serving the people and now he has erected a shelter for him and his family, to an irreparable loss. 13. On the other hand Counsel for respondent has strongly opposed the appellant's counsel and has stressed that the respondent should be allowed to use his bulldozers for demolition. 14. In present case, permission to raise construction has been granted by respondent vide no.1398.BC/10 dt 7.2.2011 in favour of appellant herein. Appellant has raised construction in consonance with permission as reported by Khailfwarzi officer in his report dt 14. 2. 2011. It appears that, permission was withdrawn on 5.3.2011, when construction was already completed as per permission. This permission was withdrawn on account of complaint moved by deceased Nandi Devi. Respondent has objected construction of appellant on the grounds that, construction has been raised on the land of Nandi Devi. 15. Once a permission to raise construction is granted by competent authority in term of section 5 of COBO act in favour of a person, then a indefeasible right accurse in favour of person in whose favour permission has granted, that before withdrawing permission, at least a minimum an opportunity of being heard should be given to him. In present case as is evident from record, no such opportunity of being heard has been given to appellant. This amount violation of principal of natural justice. In record, there is also no copy of order of withdrawal of permission as alleged by respondent. 16. When respondent issued the notice impugned to appellant for demolition, the construction was already completed on spot, as is evident from record. 17. In view of what has been discussed above, this appeal is allowed, notice impugned is order set aside. Respondent may pass fresh order with regard to withdrawal of permission, if needed after providing an opportunity of hearing to appellant herein. 17. In view of what has been discussed above, this appeal is allowed, notice impugned is order set aside. Respondent may pass fresh order with regard to withdrawal of permission, if needed after providing an opportunity of hearing to appellant herein. Record is sent back along with this order. 18. The file of this court be consigned to record after due completion.