1. This appeal has been directed against the Notice/Order No. MJ/Estt/CEO/88/03/10 dated 18/3/10, by virtue of which appellant has been directed to demolish the construction/violation within period of five days from the date of the issuance of this notice. 2. The appellant has come up in appeal before this Tribunal and has stated that the appellant is owner in possession of the shop constructed over a piece of land measuring 23/4 Marlas falling under Khasra No. 196, 197 min situated at village Rajpura Mangotraian, Jammu which has been purchased by the father of the appellant by way of a sale deed dated 31-01-1968 registered in the court of law dated 01-02-1968. Now the appellant has made some repairs to the existing room constructed over the first floor of the shop which he has constructed in the year 2000, the appellant has not raised any new construction on the spot. Where as, the respondents herein have issued a show cause notice just on the apprehension that the said might be used as shop, whereas the appellant has constructed minor repairs in the said room so that the same can be protected from rain and other natural calamities. 3. That the appellant being aggrieved of impugned order challenges the notice on the grounds that, the impugned notice being based on no material whatsoever, is arbitrary and hence, without jurisdiction. That the order impugned did not specify the grounds/reasons on account which, the minor constructions under reference as alleged to be in violation of the J&K COBO Act and Rules made there under and was non speaking and has been issued just under the apprehension that the, same may be used as shop, so order impugned is against facts, law. 4. Notice of this appeal was issued and served to the respondents. Respondents, have appeared through their counsel and has filed objections stating therein that appellant has raised the construction without seeking any permission from JMC. The total plot area 394.87 sft situated at Talab till, Jammu. The appellant was served notice u/s 7(1) and 12(1) of BOCA on 11-03-2010 on the report submitted by the enforcement Inspector on 6-03-2010 to discontinue the operation of unauthorized construction. The total plot area 394.87 sft situated at Talab till, Jammu. The appellant was served notice u/s 7(1) and 12(1) of BOCA on 11-03-2010 on the report submitted by the enforcement Inspector on 6-03-2010 to discontinue the operation of unauthorized construction. The final notice U/S 7(3) of COBO Act 1988 was issued 18-03-2010, wherein the violator was directed to demolish the un authorized construction within five days falling which the same would be demolished at his risk and cost. 5. That the appellant has raised the construction on first floor over the existing ground floor without seeking any permission from JMC and covered 262.5 sft at first floor making a violation of 100% as the construction was raised without permission from the JMC. The total plot area is 394.87 sft and appellant has to cover 80% i.e. 315sft, each at ground floor and first floor as per the Master plan but the appellant has raised the construction without any permission from JMC. The appellant has violated the provisions of J&K Control of Building Operation Act, 1988, J&K Control of Building Operation Regulation 1998 and Master plan, prescribed building bye-laws. 6. That the appellant has to maintain 50' front set back from the center of the road but the appellant has maintained only 28'-6" Front setback from the center of the road making a violation of 21'-6" i.e 43% rest no violation has been made in height and FAR but the only violation is that the appellant has not sought any permission from JMC before raising the construction. Thus the construction raised is in gross violation of the Mast plan and against the permission from JMC. In view of the above mentioned facts that the appellant has violated the provisions of setbacks Control of Building operation Regulation 1998 the violation of the setbacks are major in nature and cannot be compounded and committed a major offence which is not compoundable. 7. The built up area raised unauthorized has been worked out as under:- Total Plot Area = 394.87 sft Coverage = 80% as per JMP Ground Floor Area Coverage = 394.87 sft First Floor Area Coverage = 262.sft Total area covered in violation = 262 sft. 8. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the whole aspect of the matter and have also gone through the record available. 9. 8. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the whole aspect of the matter and have also gone through the record available. 9. Counsel appearing for the respondents has stressed upon that the appeal of the should not be allowed and respondents be allowed to demolish the house of the appellant. 10. On the other hand counsel appearing for the appellant stated that the no new construction has been raised by the appellant, only some minor repairs have been done. 11. I have considered rival contentions of both the parties and gone through law governing the matter. 12. Title of land has been proved, because photo copy of sale deed reveals that reveals that father of appellant was owner of land. Even otherwise title has not been disputed by appellant respondent. 13. Now next question arises, as to whether construction or Khailfwarzi is minor or major in nature. 14. Rules 10 and 11 of COBO.REULATIONS are necessary for deciding the matter. These reads as 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. 15. 15. 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. 16. As per report land use in area is mixed and construction raised is commercial, which is permissible, so there is no violation with regard to first regulation. 17. As per report, appellant was to keep 50feet front set back from centre of road, whereas appellant has maintained 28.6 feet. In present case ground floor already exists. This set back is applicable to ground floor, generally it, is not applicable, upper floors. 18. In term of regulation iii, appellant was to cover 80% (315 sft) of ground while raising construction on first floor, whereas, appellant has covered 262 sft, it means there is no violation with this regard. With regard to regulation iv, regarding height, there is no violation. 19. Only violation, so appears to be is that, appellant has raised construction without permission. 20. In the present case, construction has already been completed; authorities of the respondent have remained mum, till the construction is completed. Had authorities been so honest and vigilant, the construction would have been stopped at very initial stage. In present case, construction raised by appellant without permission comes to minor offence as per regulation 11 of COBO act, if allowed to be demolished, then appellant shall suffer loss in term of money as well mentally. At present law of equity demands that construction should not be demolished. 21. Further in case titled Kewal Krishan v. J&K Special Tribunal AIR 2005 SC 2578 , the Apex Court has held at Para no.16 held that, it is unnecessary permitting demolition of the structure even if it be in contravention of the Act or zoning provision. 22. At present law of equity demands that construction should not be demolished. 21. Further in case titled Kewal Krishan v. J&K Special Tribunal AIR 2005 SC 2578 , the Apex Court has held at Para no.16 held that, it is unnecessary permitting demolition of the structure even if it be in contravention of the Act or zoning provision. 22. Therefore, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case Violations/ Khailfwarzi are considered as minor in term of regulation 11, these can be compounded, the appeal of the appellant is allowed. Appellant is directed to pay Rs. 60 /- per sft. for total area of 262 sft, as compounding fee. to the respondent, within a period of 2 months from today. After deposit of compounding fees, construction shall be deemed to be regularized. In case fees is not deposited as per this order, than respondent may proceed under law against appellant. Record along with copy of order be sent back. The file of this court be consigned to record after due completion.