1. This appeal has been filed against a notice issued U/S 8(1) of J&K COBO Act, 1988, by virtue the premises of appellant situated 711-A, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu has been sealed, on the ground that appellant has converted the residential building into commercial one by opening a show room. 2. Appellant has challenged the impugned order on the grounds that, father of appellant namely Saran Dass was allotted plot no. 711-A in Gandhi Nagar Jammu in 1956 on payment of Rs 5500/- . That ownership right was conferred upon him. That Saran Dass was having four sons and he constructed residential house on the aforesaid plot. That father of appellant expired on 18-5-1986, leaving behind appellant and three brothers and their mother. That after the death of father of appellant, the ownership right on plot was declared on the name of their mother by Sub-Registrar Munsiff Jammu, vides judgment and decree dated 17-8-1988. That mother of appellant vide memorandum of family settlement dated 16-5-06, settled appellant and his brothers and appellant was given ground floor, other parts of house. The measurement of ground floor is 11' x 41'3". That appellant has kept room at ground floor as drawing room cum visiting room and small kitchen and one room on first floor. Appellant has also kept one room on 2nd floor. 3. That a notice U/S 7(3) of J&K COBO Act, was issued previously and appeal has been filed before this court. That this Tribunal while entertaining the appeal granted status quo on spot. That appellant has not raised any new construction. That appellant was astonished to receive a notice impugned U/s 8(1) of COBO Act, with regard to sealing of his premises. That action of respondent in sealing the premises is illegal and no opportunity of being heard was given before sealing. 4. I have heard both the counsel at length and perused the record of respondent. 5. Counsel for the appellant during the course of argument has stated that, order impugned has been passed against law of natural justice. That there are shops and other business concern on all sides of premises. That M/S Chanda Enterprises being run in promises is owned by his wife Anita Chanda. This business deals with ready made garments, cosmetics, sports goods etc. That there are shops and other business concern on all sides of premises. That M/S Chanda Enterprises being run in promises is owned by his wife Anita Chanda. This business deals with ready made garments, cosmetics, sports goods etc. That this business concern has vat certificate dated 11-7-06, sale tax registration certificate dated 11-7-06, and income tax return certificate from July-06 to onwards. That this business has been running from last 5 years. 6. That on this premises a loan has also be taken from UCO bank and this premises has been mortgaged by appellant. Even loan has been liquidated in full on 3-1-2011. 7. Respondent's counsel has argued that premises have been sealed, because no permission has been obtained for converting the residential house into commercial one. He further stated that notice impugned is not appealable. 8. I have given thought consideration to aspects of matter. 9. Certain provisions of control of Building operation act are necessary for deciding the present matter. This act has been formulated to control building operation in state. 10. Section 4 of act reads as under:-Control of development and building operation No person shall undertake or carry out the development of any site in any Municipal area, Local area, Town area Notified area or Area notified under the Jammu And Kashmir State TOWN Planning Act, 1963, or erect or re-erect any building or make or extend any excavation or layout any means of access to a road in such area except with the previous permission of the authority concerned in writing. A plain reading of this section, it is clear that for development of site, or for erection or re-erection any building, or make or extend any excavation or lay out any means of access to road, permission in writing is required from authority. 11. Section 5 prescribes as to how application is made and how it is processed. 12. Section 7 deals with demolition of building in certain cases. 11. Section 5 prescribes as to how application is made and how it is processed. 12. Section 7 deals with demolition of building in certain cases. Section reads as under:-Order of demolition of building in certain areas 1.Where the erection or-erection of any building has been commenced or is being carried on or has been completed without the permission referred to in section 4 or in contravention of any condition subject to which any permission has been granted, the Authority shall issue a notice in writing calling upon the person to show cause within a period of 48 hours, why the building should not be altered or demolished as may be deemed necessary to remove the contravention. 2. -- -- -- 3. -- -- -- Bare perusal of this section it evident that, it is applicable only in cases of erection or re-erection and it is not applicable in other types of cases like for development of site, or making or extending any excavation or laying out any means of access to road, as mentioned in section 4 of act. 13. Section 8 deals with sealing, it reads as under:- "8. Power to seal unauthorized construction (1) It shall be lawful for the Authority concerned, at any time, before or after making an order of demolition under section 7 to make an order directing the sealing of such erection, re-erection or work or of premises in which such erection, re-erection or work is being carried on or has been completed for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of this Act, or for preventing any dispute as the nature and extent of such erection or work. (2) Where any erection, re-erection or work on any premises in which any erection, re-erection or work is being carried out, has or, have been sealed, the authority concerned may for the purpose of demolishing such erection or work in accordance with the provisions of this Act, order such seal to be removed. (3) No person shall remove such seal except, -- - (a) under an order made by the Authority concerned under sub-section (2); or (b) Under an order made in an appeal under this Act. (3) No person shall remove such seal except, -- - (a) under an order made by the Authority concerned under sub-section (2); or (b) Under an order made in an appeal under this Act. Bare perusal section 8 of act, it is apparent that authority under act is competent to pass an order of sealing before or after passing of order of demolition under section 7 of act with regard to erection or re-erection of building without permission. Further two things are necessary before passing an order of sealing under section 8 of act .These are, firstly a order of demolition under section 7 of act and secondly there should be erection or re-erection. 14. In the present case notice issued U/S 7(3) of J&K COBO Act has already been challenged and this tribunal on 12-1-2011 has also granted status quo on spot. That appeal is still pending. 15. Perusal of record of respondent reveals that while issuing notice U/S 8(1) with regard to sealing of premises, no opportunity of being heard was given to appellant even no show cause notice was served upon the appellant. Perusal of record and notice reveals that, as the appellant continued construction work despite of J&K Special Tribunal and it has seriously affected plan development of Jammu city. 16. Bare perusal of interim order of record file reveals that no notice of any hearing was given to petitioner before passing of order of sealing of premises. The best and legal course for the respondent, in case of violation of order of Special Tribunal, was to initiate contempt proceeding against the appellant and not pass to order of sealing of premises, that too with out hearing the appellant. All the documents attached with appeal reveal that, commercial activities in the premises are continuing since from the last 4 years. Photo graphs are also reveals that, there are shops all around the premises. 17. When any action or an order, which is likely to have consequence of depriving a person from legal possession of property, is to be taken or is to be passed, by a statutory authority, an opportunity of hearing should be given to him firstly and only thereafter such order should be passed. Principle of natural justice requires in the minimum that, no person shall be condemned unheard before passing any order, which violate his fundamentals right. Principle of natural justice requires in the minimum that, no person shall be condemned unheard before passing any order, which violate his fundamentals right. Depriving a person from his property with out adopting due course of law amount to violation of his fundamental right as enshrined in constitution of state and India. In the present case appellant has been deprived from his premises, by act of sealing by respondent, without hearing him, amounts to violation of fundamental rights. 18. So far argument of the counsel for the respondent that appeal is not maintainable, is concerned, it is not sustainable. Because section 8(3b) of COBO Act clearly states, that no seal shall be removed except an order passed in an appeal. So appeal is maintainable. 19. In view of what has been discussed above order impugned, notice of sealing of premises in question is set aside. Respondent to de seal the premises. Respondent are liberty to proceed afresh, after complying the principle of natural justice. The record file is sent back to concern authority along with a copy of this order. The file of this court be consigned to record after due completion. Announced