1. This appeal is directed against the order bearing No. SMC/KH/1307-10 dated 25-01-2010 issued by respondent No. 4 i.e. Chief Khilafwarzi Officer, (SMC) Srinagar against the appellant under section 7 (3) of the J&K Control of Building Operations Act, 1988 (For short as `the Act'). 2. The circumstances giving rise to the presentation of the appeal are briefly given as under:- 3. The appellant, briefly stated, has averred in his appeal that he is the owner and in possession of three storeyed residential house situated at 98-Balgarden, Srinagar. The said house was purchased by the appellant from a migrant and subsequently secured all the papers for getting the said plot alongwith the old structure in the name of appellant as per law. The appellant is putting up alongwith his family in the said house for the last more than 15 years and till date has not done anything contrary which may be prejudicial to the respondents. In the recent past, a strong mine blast took place in the vicinity of the residential house of the appellant in whose neighborhood, there is a camp occupied by CRPF in which the entire Batallion is putting up for the last more than 20 years. The incident of mine blast resulted into heavy causalities and the damage to the buildings including the house of the appellant in which the third storeyed residential house of the appellant also got damaged and was not in a position to use for the habitation purpose and the breakage and the heavy cracks in the third storey caused damage to the rest two floors of the house of the appellant. The ex-gratia stands also granted by the Deputy Commissioner, Srinagar keeping in view the damage caused by the mine blast. The appellant has undertaken the repairs to the already constructed structure which was constructed before 15 years and got damaged by the blast, however, no fresh construction and erection came to be undertaken by the appellant as has been enumerated by the respondents by virtue of impugned notice dated 25-01-2010. The appellant has assailed the impugned notice on the following grounds:- 4. The appellant has made minor repairs to the demised third floor over the said residential house which does not require any permission from the respondents under any Statute as the same does not come within the ambit of `re-erection'. The appellant has assailed the impugned notice on the following grounds:- 4. The appellant has made minor repairs to the demised third floor over the said residential house which does not require any permission from the respondents under any Statute as the same does not come within the ambit of `re-erection'. The impugned notice is without jurisdiction as the respondent No. 4 has no authority to issue the said order. The impugned notice is vague so-much-so that it has mentioned that the appellant has undertaken the construction of third floor without permission when the fact of the matter is that the appellant has executed repairs on the previously existing site which got damaged due to the mine blast in the vicinity. 5. The respondents controverted the averments of the appellant and inter-alia contended that the appellant had erected third floor over the existing three storeyed residential house by way of construction of three rooms illegally for which it was mandatory upon the appellant to seek the permission from the competent authority which had not been obtained by the appellant, as such, the construction so raised is illegal and unauthorized on the spot as the construction happen to be fresh one and not old as asserted by the appellant. The notices were issued as per the scheme of the Act and the construction raised illegally, un-authorizedly by the appellant is thus liable to be demolished in pursuance to the notice issued under section 7 (3) of the Act. 6. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties and have perused the material on the record. 7. The case of the appellant is that he is the owner and in possession of three storeyed residential house which was purchased by the appellant from a migrant and the appellant is putting up alongwith his family in the said house for the last more than 15 years and recently, a strong mine blast took place in the vicinity of the residential house of the appellant which resulted into heavy causalities and the damage to the buildings including the house of the appellant in which the third storeyed residential house of the appellant also got damaged and was not in a position to use for the habitation purpose and the Government also release ex-gratia relief in favour of the appellant. The appellant has undertaken the repairs to the already constructed structure which was constructed before 15 years and got damaged by the blast. However, the respondents have asserted that the appellant has raised the impugned construction without permission and as such, appeal may be dismissed. 8. In the instant case, it is not disputed that the appellant has proprietary rights over the land on which there exists the impugned structure. The respondents have ample powers under the Act to stop the construction on spot so that the appellant could have been stopped in carrying out and completing the impugned construction over the existing three storeyed residential house and this in turn substantiates the stand of appellant to the effect that the construction already existed on spot, moreso when the respondents have themselves admitted that the appellant had raised the impugned construction and when the same had been raised has not been mentioned in the impugned notice. In these circumstances having regard to the overall facts of the case as discussed above, it would be most unfair and harsh if respondents are now allowed to pull down the third floor of the appellant. 9. In these circumstances, having regard to over all facts and circumstances of the case, the respondents remained mute spectators until the impugned construction has been constructed over the existing structure. Moreover, from the conduct of the respondents, it smacks that the same has been raised with the connivance of the respondents. 10. According to the Ld. Counsel for the appellant though the demolition notice is liable to be set aside in view of procedural defects in the case but since Rule 9 of the J&K Control of Building Operations (Revised) Regulations, 2011 empowers this Tribunal to compound the deviations which may occur in any case like the present one, so the proper course to adopt in the case would be to compound the case as the same will be in the interests of justice. The Ld. Counsel has further submits that if the offence is not compounded, any other course adopted in the case will work only injustice in the case. The Ld. Counsel has further submits that if the offence is not compounded, any other course adopted in the case will work only injustice in the case. In this regard, it is suffice to note that from the perusal of the report prepared by the Ward Officer concerned in the instant case, the appellant's structure is three rooms measuring 10' x 7' = 70', 10' x 11' - 6" =116' and 11' x 7' = 77' which calculates to 263 sqfts. 11. Having regard to the fact that the appellant has been allowed to raise and complete the construction on the existing structure which as on now factually exists on spot and as per the memorandum of appeal, the said structure is old one and existing on spot from years together, it would be most unfair and harsh, if respondents are now allowed to pull down the same. Viewed thus, keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances of the case as discussed above, this Tribunal is of the opinion that the offence committed by the appellant can be compounded on payment of composition fee. 12. Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, this Tribunal is inclined to compound the case subject to payment of composition fee which is worked out as 263 sqft x Rs. 25 amounting to Rs. 6,575/- (Rupees six thousand five hundred and seventy five only). 13. Therefore, the total composition fee amounting to Rs. 6,575/-(Rupees six thousand live hundred and seventy five only) shall be deposited by the appellant in the Addl. Treasury under Major Head 8448-Deposit of Local Fund dealing with the Municipal Chest by way of treasury challan within one month from today, failing which the respondents shall be at liberty to demolish the deviated portions of the structure in dispute. The Treasury Officer Addl. Treasury Tankipora is directed to receive the composition fee from the appellants and copies of the receipt should be forwarded to the Tribunal as well as to the Chairman BOCA. After composition fee is deposited by the appellants, the appeal shall be deemed to have been disposed of as having been compounded and consequently the impugned order dated 25-01-2010 passed by respondent No. 4 shall become non enforceable. After composition fee is deposited by the appellants, the appeal shall be deemed to have been disposed of as having been compounded and consequently the impugned order dated 25-01-2010 passed by respondent No. 4 shall become non enforceable. However, in case the composition fee as aforesaid is not deposited by the appellant within the period prescribed, the order of demolition which is impugned in this appeal shall remain in force and the BOCA shall be at liberty to demolish the impugned construction. Let record alongwith the copy of the judgment be sent to respondent No. 1. File of this Tribunal be consigned to records after its due completion.