1. This is an appeal directed against the order of demolition passed by respondent No. 4 i.e. Chief Khilafwarzi Officer (SMC), Srinagar under his No. SMC/KH/442-45 dated 09-02-2009 under section 7 (3) of the J&K Control of Building Operations Act, 1988 (For short as `the Act'). 2. As per appellant, he had constructed two shops over and upon his land in front of his residential house situated at Lal Nagar, Srinagar before some years in order to provide source of sustenance to his educated and unemployed sons and the same were raised in accordance with the permission granted by the competent authority in the year 1980, as such, the contravention of section 4 as alleged by the respondents in the impugned notice No. SMC/KH/442-45 dated 09-02-2009 issued in terms of section 7 (3) of the Act is unsustainable, as such, the impugned notice is challenged on the following grounds:- 3. The impugned notice suffers infirmity inasmuch as the order has been passed without due compliance of the procedure envisaged under section 7(1) of the Act as the said notice has not been duly served upon the appellant as such, has been deprived of the right to explain the cause. The impugned notice is bad in law inasmuch as smacks of lack of jurisdiction as the respondent No. 4 is not competent to pass the same in view of the language of section 3 of the Act. The impugned notice has been passed without due compliance of the procedure envisaged under section 6 of the Act. The said notice reflects/reveals presence of ulterior motives of the respondents with a view to involve the appellant into difficulties and in case any violation was made by the appellant, the respondents were bound to have stopped the appellant at the time when infringement was in process which they failed to do so at the relevant time, as such, cannot raise the plea of contravention after a long period as the law of estoppel will come into operation. 4. Otherside has contested the appeal by filing the counter reply alongwith the record. 4. Otherside has contested the appeal by filing the counter reply alongwith the record. As per the respondents appellant has constructed the two shops without proper 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 repairs of his house without permission. 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 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. 4 is competent to issue the notice under the Act and the notices have been issued as per the mandate of the Act. 5. The appellant also filed his rejoinder stating therein that the respondents have not controverter the para 2 of the memorandum of appeal wherein the appellant has stated that the construction of shops has been raised in pursuance of sanction issued in the year 1980. It has been further submitted that the property was joint and the sanction was issued in the name of Azam Lone who happens to be cousin brother of the appellant and after the partition of the property, the same has been devolved to the share of the appellant. The site plan which has been authenticated by the concerned authorities while issuing the permission clearly shows the site as has been shown at the end of impugned demolition notice. Since the respondents have not denied this fact nor given any reply to the said para, so it is admitted by them that the construction has taken place in pursuance of sanction order of 1980. Since the respondents have not denied this fact nor given any reply to the said para, so it is admitted by them that the construction has taken place in pursuance of sanction order of 1980. It has been submitted that only some plastering has been executed the said shops which does not require any permission under any law as the plastering does not change the dimensions of the structure and as such, no permission was required under law. The impugned notice also reveals that the construction is complete. If it was a fresh construction as alleged by the respondents, then it will take about more than two months for completion and if it was an illegal construction, then the respondents should have proceeded against the appellant at the initial stage and should have stopped the appellant from raising the illegal construction but infact the construction was already existing on spot as was raised in pursuance to sanction order of 1980. 6. Heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 7. 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 the two shops without proper permission" 8. 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". 9. 9. The appellant in the present case has submitted that the impugned shops have been constructed in the year 1980 by his cousin brother after obtaining the proper building permission but he has only executed some plastering to the said shops which does not require any permission under any law as the plastering does not change the dimensions of the structure and as such, no permission was required under law. However, the respondents have submitted that the appellant has raised the fresh construction illegally and not old as alleged by the appellant. Be that as may it, the record submitted by the respondents reveal that the appellant has laid slab on 28-12-2009 (i.e. Sunday) and reconstructed the dismantled portion which was already dismantled by the concerned ward officer. A copy of the suit filed by the appellant before the Municipal Magistrate, Srinagar also is part of the record submitted by the respondents in which the appellant has stated that he had constructed two shops ten years before upon his land. So the contention of the appellant in the memorandum of appeal that the said shops had been constructed in the year 1980 and only plastering has now been made is not convincing. 10. Another point which the appellant has raised in the appeal that due procedure has not been followed by the respondents, but the record of file produced by the respondents reveals that they have followed the set procedure and notices under section 7 (1) and (3) of the Act have been issued on 04-02-2009 and 09-02-2009 and served upon the appellant on 06-02-2009 and 10-02-2009, thus giving proper opportunity of being heard to the appellant who has failed to submit the same. 11. Another point raised by the Ld. Counsel for the appellant that respondent No. 4 is not competent to issue the notice for the reason that the statutory power cannot be delegated under the administrative law. However, 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. However, 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 thereunder" 12. From the perusal of the impugned notice, it is clear that respondent No.4 has been empowered to issue the notice as per order No. SMC/BS/Delegation/590-640 dated 24-09-2008, 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 25-03-2009 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.