1. This is an appeal directed against the order of demolition passed by respondent No. 2 i.e. Enforcement Officer (SMC), Srinagar under his No. SMC/KH/1559-62 dated 28-03-2011 under section 7 (3) of the J&K Control of Building Operations Act, 1988 (For short as `the Act'). 2. As per appellant, he is the owner in possession of a plot situated at Lawaypora, Srinagar over which there existed double storeyed shop line since long back and even before the area was brought under the limits of: Srinagar Municipal Corporation and due to afflux of time and vagaries of weather, it had suffered damages. Due to this damage, the bricks came trembling down because of vibration caused by the slightest movement of the vehicles in the area and under such peculiar circumstances, appellant was constrained to affect the necessary repairs to the said shop line which repairs were undertaken/executed by the appellant which includes plastering and face lifting without affecting any material alteration to the said shop line to prevent any further damage, loss of life and mishap. Since the repairs undertaken by the appellant did not constitute any "erection" or "re-erection" for which the permission is required as the construction is existing on spot which was being used by the appellant from years together without any objection or interference from any quarter, however, the respondent No. 2 has issued the impugned notice dated 28-03-2011 which is assailed on the following grounds:- 3. The impugned order falls short of required prescribed under the Act as no notice under section 12 of the Act has ever been issued or served upon the appellant which would have made the appellant to believe that his action of minor repairs to the already existing structure has been objected by the respondents. Had the notice under section 12 of the Act been issued or the appellant been directed to stop the repairs and obtain the permission, he would not have affected the repairs and would have sought the permission but if it is admitted for the sake of arguments that notice is correct, still the alleged contravention does not fall within the definition of major offence under the Act and the Regulations made thereunder. The contravention as alleged in the impugned order of demolition does not hit any scheme sanctioned by the Government under any law nor does it contravene any zoning regulation or any of the provision contained in the Master Plan of the city nor had infringed the right of any neighbour Respondent No. 2 had no valid authority to issue the impugned notice of demolition. Appellant has been condemned unheard as the notices under section 7 (1) and (3) of the Act were served upon the appellant within 24 hours which is against the principles of natural justice, as such, the order is liable to be set aside. Appellant has not raised any new construction but has affected only necessary repairs to the already existing structure for making it safe. Respondents have issued the impugned notice without proper application of mind. Appellant has not made any alteration to the said structure and has only strengthened the structure by using the cement in place of clay and wood with which the shop line was constructed earlier. The repairs have been undertaken with the consent of the respondents and they did not raise any objection when the repairs were being undertaken. 4. Otherside has contested the appeal by filing the counter reply alongwith the record. As per the respondents appellant has raised the construction of double storeyed commercial shopping complex without permission, as such, the appeal is not maintainable for the reason that every person intending to undertake or carry out the development of any site or erect or re-erect any building or make or lay out any means of access to road or materially alter a building or conduct any repairs to any building shall give notice of his intention in writing in the prescribed format to the competent authority. The appellant in his appeal has not made any whisper about the permission which is mandatory. Appellant has started the construction of double storeyed shopping complex without permission over illegal existing construction. The construction is fresh and not old as contended in the appeal. It is not a fact that any internal repairs have been carried but the construction is fresh and without permission from the competent authority which makes it ample clear that the appellant has raised the construction illegally and unauthorizedly. The construction is fresh and not old as contended in the appeal. It is not a fact that any internal repairs have been carried but the construction is fresh and without permission from the competent authority which makes it ample clear that the appellant has raised the construction illegally and unauthorizedly. This shopping complex has been constructed recently and the area has been included within the limits of Srinagar Municipal Corporation five years earlier. Despite number of warnings to the appellant not to go ahead with the illegal and unauthorized construction by the field staff did not yield any fruit which compelled the respondents to issue the impugned notice. In parawise reply, it has been submitted by the respondents that the construction in question is fresh and appellant be directed to get the permission copy if the same was existing. All the requirements have been complied with by the respondents while issuing the impuened notice. Construction of big shopping complex, without permission falls under major offence and respondent No. 2 is competent to issue the notice under the Act and proper opportunity in terms of the act have been provided to the appellant and same can be verified from the record. 5. Heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 6. In order to decide the appeal on the touch stone of the provision of the Act, it may be desirable to reproduce the exact allegation of the construction affected by the appellant as follows:- "you have constructed double storeyed commercial shopping complex without proper permission as per the rough site plan shown at mark "A" drawn over leaf as reported by Ward Officer concerned" 7. To put the facts straight, it is the case of the appellant that the double storeyed shop line was constructed by him since long back before the area was brought under the limits of Srinagar Municipal Corporation and same required some repairs as the bricks came trembling down because of the vibration caused by the slightest movement of the vehicles, as such, the appellant has made some minor repairs including plastering and face lifting without affecting the material alteration of the said shop line. Another ground taken by the appellant in his appeal that notice under sub-section (1) and (3) of section 7 of the Act have been received within 24 hours, so a proper chance of show cause has not been provided to him. Moreover, while he was affecting the repairs, respondents have not issued any notice under section 12 of the Act. As per the appellant, he has raised the construction over his proprietary land. It does not affect any plan of the Government or infringed the right of any neighbour. The power of respondent No. 2 to issue the impugned notice has also been challenged in the appeal. 8. From the perusal of the memorandum of appeal at page 4 in ground (g) it has been admitted by the appellant that appellant has only strengthened the structure by using cement in place of clay with which shop line was constructed earlier. Ground (g) is also reproduced hereunder:- "That the appellant has not made any addition or alteration to the said structure and has only strengthened the structure by using cement in place of clay and wood with which the shop line was constructed earlier, the said repairs did not constitute any offence or did not require any permission." 9. From this ground, it is admitted by the appellant that he has changed the clay by using cement and for this purpose, he has to pull down the walls constructed earlier and reconstruct the same by using cement. So the contention of the respondents is verified by his own admission. 10. Another point which the appellant has raised in the appeal that he has not been provided proper chance of hearing, but from the perusal of the record, it is clear that notice under section 7 (1) of the Act has been issued on 22-03-2011 and the same has been received by the appellant on 24-03-2011 whereas the notice under section 7 (3) of the Act has been issued on 28-03-2011 and received by him on 29-03-2011, so the argument of Ld. Counsel for appellant that notice has been served upon the appellant within 24 hours is not well founded because it is not based on facts. 11. Counsel for appellant that notice has been served upon the appellant within 24 hours is not well founded because it is not based on facts. 11. The "erection" or "re-erection" of building must be clear from the definition itself which is construction of new building on a vacant plot of land but any material alteration or enlargement of building, addition of any space/room to the existing building or reconstruction of the building or of a portion thereof. The renovation of building would fall within the meaning of "erection" or "re-erection" as defined under section 2 (9) of the Act and such renovation cannot be undertaken without proper permission of the Authority in terms of Section 4 of the Act. Section 4 of the Act is reproduced hereunder:- "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 lay out any means of access to a road in such area except with the previous permission of the Authority concerned in writing." 12. During the course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for the appellant was asked to submit any permission with regard to the shop line, but he has failed to produce the same, so the appellant in the present case admittedly raised the construction without permission of the Authority under section 4 of the Act though appellant's claim to have raised the construction long back and only made repairs to the structure in the last year, yet on his own admission in ground (g) of the memorandum of appeal shows that he has made the renovations of the building, as such, the assertion that it is not a fresh construction does not seem convincing. 13. Another plea which has been raised by the appellant that notice under section 12 of the Act has not been served upon him. 13. Another plea which has been raised by the appellant that notice under section 12 of the Act has not been served upon him. As per record of the BOCA and report of the Ward Officer, the appellant has raised the construction during the turmoil period without obtaining proper permission from the competent authority and he has raised the construction of building afresh by taking advantage of road widening scheme and he has completed the building when the report has been submitted by the Ward Officer. Nodoubt, Ward Officer remained failure to perform his duty while he was constructing shop shopping complex but it does not mean that he would get the benefit of de-reliction of duty of the Ward Officer. 14. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the appeal having no merit is hereby dismissed. Stay order dated 06-04-2011 is hereby vacated. A copy of this order alongwith the record be sent to the respondent No. 1. File of this Tribunal be consigned to records after it due completion.