1. This appeal has been directed against the order dated. 13.11.2002 issued by respondent no. 1, by virtue of which appellant has been asked to demolish the unauthorized construction raised on 2nd floor situated at SSM Public School Patoli Magotrian Jammu. 2. Appellant in the memo of the appeal, has stated that after obtaining permission for construction from Jammu Municipality, she raised ground floor and first floor on plot situated at Patoli Magotrian Top Sherkhania Jammu. That appellant wanted to raise construction on 2nd floor in aforesaid building and for that purpose, she applied to respondent for grant of building permission. That along with application form a fee of Rs. 100/- as fee of application was deposited on 12.2.2002. That at the time of raising constriction on ground floor and first floor, NOC were obtained from the required authorities. That appellant case for raising construction was taken before in meeting of respondent, but till date sanction has not been communicated. Appellant was told that permission was sanctioned by respondents. Accordingly, appellant raised construction on second floor. That after construction was raised; notice impugned was issued, which is against fact and law. That notice has been issued without jurisdiction. That, no communication regarding rejection of permission was communicated to appellant. 3. This appeal was filed on 15.11.2002 and despite availing many opportunities during period of more than nine and half years, respondent did not produce the record. 4. Counsel for appellant produced a map of construction on 9.2.2011 and it has been stated that this is alleged construction. 5. While perusing the map, this court deemed it necessary to direct respondent to go on spot for appraising the court, with respect to Khailfwarzi, for just decision of appeal as per map placed by appellant. Accordingly, it was directed to respondent to go on spot and prepare a detailed report of alleged construction and violation, if any. 6. Respondent accordingly submitted report and record after preparing it afresh. Title of land has been proved, because photocopy of registered sale deed has been annexed. 7. Appellant has rested his case on deemed permission. But facts remains, that construction is without proper permission, Even if construction is raised on deemed permission,it is required to be seen as to whether, it is as per master plan and as per regulation or not. 8. Rules 10 and 11 of COBO.REULATIONS are necessary for deciding the matter. 7. Appellant has rested his case on deemed permission. But facts remains, that construction is without proper permission, Even if construction is raised on deemed permission,it is required to be seen as to whether, it is as per master plan and as per regulation or not. 8. 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. (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. 9. 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. 10. In present case, report reveals that land use in area is mixed. 10. In present case, report reveals that land use in area is mixed. As per master plan Jammu 2021, in mixed zone, residential as well as commercial activity is permissible. Appellant has been running school. This permission for running school has been granted by various govt. order, latest is Govt. order No. 308Edu of 2010 dated 1.4.2010. 11. Further as per Master plan 2021, in residential area certain activities are permitted. 8.2 Permissible Uses: The uses permitted in the various land use zones and permissible on approval by the Competent Authority are given as under. The area of basement shall not be counted in FAR if used for parking and storage. Mezzanine shall be taken into floor area ration. RESDENTIAL 8.2 (a) Use Permitted: Dwellings of all types, guest houses, boarding houses, dharamshala, night shelter, rooming houses, rooming houses customary home occupation, schools offering general educational courses, libraries, parks, playgrounds, golf courses, nurseries, green houses, and general purpose farms, churches, temples, mosques and other religious buildings, clubs, cultural and philanthropic associations of non-commercial nature, swimming pools for community use, professional establishments satisfying the requirements of some customary occupations and private nursing homes, convenience shopping, local shopping. 12. So it can be inferred from above clause of master plan that in residential area activities of schools offering, general educational courses are allowed. 13. Next with regard to violation of set back is concerned, for 2nd floor, it is not applicable. These are applicable only for ground floor. 14. As per report, height for building is concerned; it should be 40 feet as per regulation, whereas appellant has raised 41 feet. This construction has been made in 2002 and it is now 2012 and so at this stage this violation of one ft. can also be considered as minor. 15. As per report permissible construction as per master plan in present case is 3829 sft, whereas appellant has constructed 3281 sft., so violation is nil to this aspect, as per report. 16. During the course of argument, appellant counsel has placed on record two permission granted by respondent for raising construction on said plot. These are dated.2.11.2004 and 9.7.2009 i.e. after issuing of notice impugned in this appeal. So it can be considered that working of respondent Dept. 16. During the course of argument, appellant counsel has placed on record two permission granted by respondent for raising construction on said plot. These are dated.2.11.2004 and 9.7.2009 i.e. after issuing of notice impugned in this appeal. So it can be considered that working of respondent Dept. is not going on, fairly and honestly, because while granting permission for construction later on, on land in favour of same party, why respondent did not consider pendency of this appeal against construction raised unauthorizedly on same land. 17. Construction has been raised in 2002 and respondents did not take any action, when the construction was in progress, now they have missed the bus. Had the respondents been so vigilant and honest, then construction should have been stopped at the initial stage. 18. In view of what has been discussed above construction of 3281 sft. raised on 2nd floor by appellant at Patoli Jammu, is considered as minor in nature and is compounded @ of Rs. 30/- per sft. Appellant shall deposit requisite fees within two months from today with respondent. After that construction shall be deemed to be regularized. 19. In the end it is hereby observed that, original record of case was not produced before this court, it smacks some extraneous consideration on behalf of custodian of record. This aspect is required to investigate. Commissioner shall himself do this and fix liability on erring officer within two month. Report to this aspect be submitted with in two months. 20. Record of respondent is sent back along with order.