1. This is an appeal directed against the order of demolition passed by respondent No. 2 i.e. Khilafwarzi Officer (SMC), Srinagar under his No. SMC/KH/525-30 dated 28-11-2005 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 two storeyed building situated at Hazari Bazar, Rainawari, Srinagar which has been existing on spot for the last more than three decades and due to some recent earthquake, the aforesaid house experienced certain cracks in its first floor which were required to be repaired as otherwise the same would cause further damage to the said house, therefore, in order to avert any further damage or loss on spot, the appellant effected necessary minor repairs to the first floor of the aforesaid house in the form of cement plastering without effecting any material alteration to the same and the same does not amount to "erection" or "re-erection" within the meaning of the Act, as such, no permission was required to be sought from the respondents and under this bonafide belief, the appellant effected the required minor repairs to the said house. However, the field staff of respondents came on spot a few days back and threatened to demolish the aforesaid house of the appellant without any reasonable cause or recourse of law, as such, the appellant was constrained to file a civil suit in the court of Sub Judge (Municipal Magistrate) Srinagar and the trial court was pleased on 23-11-2005 to direct the respondents to maintain status quo on spot, but after service of the said order, the respondent No. 2 issued the impugned notice dated 28-11-2005 which is assailed on the following grounds:- The impugned order is without jurisdiction as the act of appellant mentioned above does not constitute any offence under the Act. The contents of impugned order are highly vague and non-speaking inasmuch as it is alleged that the appellant has re-started raising of first floor over the existing ground floor which is absolutely false and misconceived. The contents of impugned order are highly vague and non-speaking inasmuch as it is alleged that the appellant has re-started raising of first floor over the existing ground floor which is absolutely false and misconceived. The fact of the matter is that the two storeyed house of the appellant has been existing on spot for the last more than three decades and only some minor repairs have been effected in its first floor and in support of his contention, the appellant has also placed on record the copy of sale deed. It is contended in the impugned order that the Building Operations Controlling Authority has been appointed vide Govt. notification No. 152 dated 31-05-2005. It is respectfully submitted that by virtue of SRO 152, the respondent No. 1 was conferred with jurisdiction to regulate building activities in the areas falling in the periphery of Dal Lake including the areas of Nishat, Brain, Bulward etc. The area where the house of the appellant is located does not fall in the areas shown in SRO 152 and secondly, the said SRO has recently been quashed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of Hon'ble High court, as such, the impugned order has been issued without application of mind. Assuming without conceding that the appellant has made any contravention under the provisions of the Act and the Regulations made thereunder, still the said contravention does not amount to a major offence. The impugned order falls short of required prescribed under the Act as no notice under section 12 or section 7 (1) of the Act has ever been served upon the appellant, therefore, the impugned order is violative of the provisions of the Act and principles of natural justice. Respondent No. 2 has no authority or justification in law to pass the impugned order as the jurisdiction to pass the impugned order vests with respondent No. 1 and the said power has not been delegated to the respondent No. 2. On these grounds, the impugned order is prayed to be set aside. 3. Otherside has contested the appeal by filing the counter reply alongwith the record. On these grounds, the impugned order is prayed to be set aside. 3. Otherside has contested the appeal by filing the counter reply alongwith the record. As per the respondents, appellant has restarted the raising of 1st floor over the existing ground floor 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 which makes it ample clear that the appellant has raised the construction illegally and as such, is unauthorized construction and stringent action should be taken against the appellant by demolishing the same. 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 it is imagination of the appellant that the construction is decades old. All the requirements have been complied with by the respondents while issuing the impugned notice and the said construction falls under major offence and respondent No. 2 is competent to issue the notice under the Act as the power has been delegated to the respondent No. 2 by the Building Operations Controlling Authority and proper opportunity in terms of the Act have been provided to the appellant and same can be verified from the record. 4. Heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 5. In order to decide the appeal on the touch stone on 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 restarted the raising of 1st floor over the existing ground floor (shop line) measuring 104' x 13' without permission". 6. 5. In order to decide the appeal on the touch stone on 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 restarted the raising of 1st floor over the existing ground floor (shop line) measuring 104' x 13' without permission". 6. To put the facts straight, it is the case of the appellant that a two storeyed building has been existing on spot for the last more than three decades and due to some recent earthquake, the aforesaid house experienced certain cracks in its first floor which were required to be repaired as otherwise the same would cause further damage to the said house, therefore, in order to avert any further damage or loss on spot, the appellant effected necessary minor repairs to its first floor in the form of cement plastering without effecting any material alteration to the same which does not come within the definition of "erection" `or "re-erection", as such, no permission was required to be sought from the respondents and under this bonafide belief, the appellant effected the required minor repairs to the said house. Another ground taken by the appellant in his appeal that notice under sub-section (1) of section 7 of the Act has not been served upon him, so a proper chance of show cause has not been provided to him. Moreover, while he was affecting the repairs, respondents have not issued/served any notice under section 12 of the Act. The power of respondent No. 2 to issue the impugned notice has also been challenged in the appeal. 7. 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/repairs 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. The renovation/repairs 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". 8. The record of the respondents also carries a communication dated 24-11-2005 addressed by concerned Ward Officer to the Khilafwarzi Officer whereby a detailed report has been furnished and in terms of the same, it is evident that the appellant has started raising of first floor over the existing ground floor without obtaining proper permission which was got demolished on 11-11-2005 and now the appellant has restarted the construction again for which the Ward Officer proceeded for demolition, however, the appellant produced the copy of stay order of the civil court and had requested that notices under sections 7 (1) and (3) of the Act be issued against the appellant. Thus, it is clear that the appellant has restarted the construction after the same was demolished by the Ward officer. The appellant in the present case admittedly raised the construction without permission of the Authority required under section 4 of the Act though appellant claims to have raised the construction long back and only made repairs to the structure, yet on his own admission in the memorandum of appeal shows that he has made the renovations/repairs of the building, as such, the assertion that it is not a fresh construction does not seem convincing. 9. 9. Another point which the appellant has raised in the appeal that he has not provided proper chance of hearing as the notices under section 12 and 7 (1) of the Act has not been served upon him, but from the perusal of the record, it is clear that not only the notice under section 12 has been issued but also notice under section 7 (1) of the Act has been issued on 24-11-2005 which has been duly received by the appellant, so the argument of Ld. counsel for appellant that notice has been served upon the appellant is belied by the record produced by the respondents inasmuch as the Ward Officer has also applied to the SHO Police Station Khanyar for providing the assistance in the removal of structures which justifies that construction of the first floor was being raised at the time when notice under section 12 of the Act has been issued. It seems that the appellant has undertaken the construction of first floor which required permission under the Act and the Regulations made thereunder. 10. Another contention of the appellant that it has been contended in the impugned order that the Building Operation Controlling Authority has been appointed vide Government notification No. 152 dated 31-05-2005 which SRO has already been quashed by the Hon'ble High Court does not borne out from the contents of the impugned order, so the said contention of the appellant does not require any consideration. 11. Another important point has been raised by the Ld. Counsel for the appellant that respondent No. 2 is not competent to issue the notice as the powers under section 7 of the Act has not been delegated by the Authority. Under clause 8 of J&K Building Operations (Revised Regulations) 2001, the Authority can delegate power to the Chairman or to any officer of the Srinagar Municipality for efficiently carrying out the purpose. Clause 8 is reproduced hereunder:- "8. Delegation:- The Authority may delegate any of its powers exercisable by it to the Chairman or to such officers of the Srinagar Municipality for efficient carrying out of the purpose of the Jammu and Kashmir Control of Building Operation Act, 1988 and the regulations made there under" 12. Clause 8 is reproduced hereunder:- "8. Delegation:- The Authority may delegate any of its powers exercisable by it to the Chairman or to such officers of the Srinagar Municipality for efficient carrying out of the purpose of the Jammu and Kashmir Control of Building Operation Act, 1988 and the regulations made there under" 12. From the perusal of the impugned notice, it is clear that respondent No. 2 has been empowered to issue the notice as per order No. 1785-1825 dated 28-09-2005, as such, the contention of Ld. Counsel for the appellant is also devoid of force. 13. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the appeal having no merit is hereby dismissed. Stay order dated 01-12-2005 is hereby vacated. A copy of this order along with the record be sent to the respondent No. 1. File of this Tribunal be consigned to records after it due completion.