1. This appeal is directed against the order bearing No. SMC/KH/1465-68 dated 08-03-2010 passed by respondent No. 3 i.e. Chief Khilafwarzi Officer, 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 present appeal are briefly given as under:- The appellant is the owner and in possession of a building and the land beneath and appurtenant thereto situated at Karan Nagar, Srinagar and in order to construct a three storeyed with basement and attic floor hostel building applied for permission to the respondents which was accordingly granted vide building permission order No. 109 of 2007 dated 18-05-2007 for the said purpose. After obtaining the said permission, the appellant started raising the construction in accordance with the aforesaid building permission and has not extended the plinth area and the appellant has completed the out structure including the roofing before more than three months i.e. in the year 2009. However, on 08-03-2010, the appellant received the two notices from the respondents under section 7 (1) and (3) of the Act whereby the appellant has been directed to demolish/pull down the construction so far as it deviated the sanctioned plan. Appellant is aggrieved of the said demolition notice in terms of section 7 (3) of the Act and the same is challenged in this appeal on the following grounds:- The impugned notice discloses that the appellant has converted the attic floor into 4th storey and thus has deviated the sanctioned plan, but the attic floor is itself a floor and it is the 4th floor for which the appellant has paid the construction fee and under law there is no violation to the sanctioned plan as the building permission itself speaks that sanction is hereby granted in favour of the appellant for construction of three storeyed with basement and attic floor hostel. The respondents were bound under law first to issue the notice under section 7 (1) of the Act so that the appellant could have replied the same, but the respondents have served both the notices under section 7 (1) and (3) of the Act on the same date i.e. 08-03-2010, as such, the appellant has been condemned unheard and no opportunity of being heard has been given to the appellant. While raising the construction, the appellant has not grabbed any State land or the land of any neighbor but has raised the construction on his own proprietary land, nor any law of the land has been violated or rights of any neighbor have been infringed. The respondent No. 3 has no power to issue the impugned notice as the delegation is not in accordance with the procedure laid down under the Act and further the Building Operations Controlling Authority (BOCA) has not delegated any power to the respondent No.3 nor the member of BOCA has passed such order of delegation. As per the Act, the BOCA can delegate the powers as per the Act and the power of delegation can be delegated to any person not to persons. The delegation dated 24-09-2008 discloses that the power has been delegated to number of persons, so the delegation is not in accordance with law. The impugned notice does not disclose any serious violation against the appellant and it only discloses that the appellant has converted attic floor into 4th floor for which the appellant has paid the registration fee, so there is no violation on part of the appellant. The allegations made in the impugned notice are not serious one and does not constitute any violation or deviation as per the Act. The impugned notice has been passed by the respondents in a mechanical, omnibus and routine manner without application of mind and without going into the facts and circumstances of the case, therefore, the same is illegal, unwarranted, unjustified and against the settled principles of law. 3. Standing counsel for the respondents Mr. M. A. Kirmani has submitted his counter objections alleging that an appeal of the appellant is not maintainable for being legally and factually wrong and in correct and deserves to be dismissed. The appellant has been granted permission by the respondents for construction of three storeyed with basement and attic floor hostel building at mark-A after dismantling the existing two storeyed with attic and two storeyed structure as per the terms and conditions laid down in the building permission order. The appellant has been granted permission by the respondents for construction of three storeyed with basement and attic floor hostel building at mark-A after dismantling the existing two storeyed with attic and two storeyed structure as per the terms and conditions laid down in the building permission order. The appellant has violated the sanctioned plan by grossly deviating the terms and conditions of the sanctioned plan and constructed the building in square in shape instead of L-shape towards East side which has been shown in rough site plan at mark-B and converted the attic floor into fourth storey a complaint has been received by the respondents against the commercial complex duly endorsed by the office of Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir lodged by various persons of the locality. The appellant apart from deviations, one storey completely without permission has been constructed. The illegal construction and deviations committed by the appellant are of major nature and a big structure by way of columns (commercial) has been raised in total violation of the permission granted by the competent authority and accordingly process under section 7 (3) of the Act has been initiated. The violation is very serious in nature, willful and deliberate and accordingly the appeal preferred by the respondents is devoid of any merit and deserves to be demolished. In para wise reply, it has been submitted by the respondents that the appellant in total violation of the permission raised a big column structure with huge deviations. The appellant has been granted permission for three storeyed Hostel building with attic but he has raised four storeyed commercial complex thereby completely changing the permission and converting the hostel building into a commercial structure. There is a lot difference between the attic and a full fledged storey. The notices have been issued as per the procedure envisaged under the Act. The appellant has not raised construction as per plan and has not adhered to the terms and conditions of the building permission. The neighbours of the appellant have filed complaint against the construction which is part of the record. By converting the permission from the hostel building to the commercial structure is violation of the Master plan and other laws. The respondent. No. 3 is competent to issue notices under the Act and the delegation of powers is in accordance with the Act and the Regulations. 4. Heard Ld. By converting the permission from the hostel building to the commercial structure is violation of the Master plan and other laws. The respondent. No. 3 is competent to issue notices under the Act and the delegation of powers is in accordance with the Act and the Regulations. 4. Heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case carefully. 5. The appellant has validly got permission from the respondents for the construction of three storeyed with basement and attic floor hostel building at mark-A after dismantling the existing two storeyed with attic at mark-B and two storeyes structure at mark-C. A building is to be constructed in L-shape but the appellant has constructed the building in square shape instead of L-Shape towards east side and converted the attic floor into fourth storey and deviated the sanctioned plan. Rest of the setbacks have been maintained by the appellant. As per the permission, appellant has to first of all demolish the two storeyed building, one in west side and other in front side before execution of construction work but instead of that, appellant has dismantled only one structure towards west side and has not dismantled the structure towards front side though in this regard, appellant has submitted an application before the Authority for allowing him to take up the construction of main building upto ground level and thereafter he will dismantle it. The said permission was also granted to the appellant to dismantle after reaching the ground level but he has not acted upon the same later on. As per report of the Ward officers and as per the objections of the respondents, it has come clear that appellant has violated the sanctioned plan and constructed the building in square instead of L-shape and also deviated on one side from the ground level. Moreover, appellant has committed the deviation of one storey completely without permission from the competent authority. There is a deviation of major nature and a big structure by way of commercial column and he has converted the hostel building into commercial building Violation is of serious nature, willful and deliberate, so as per respondents, he has changed the nature of land and has converted the hostel building into commercial structure which will completely in violation of the permission granted in his favour. Moreover, he combined the existing two storeyed building on front side which is in the shape of shops with the impugned building, resultantly the plea of the respondents seems to be having force. 6. 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 and any material alteration or enlargement of building, addition of any space/room to the existing building, new building or reconstruction of the building or of a portion thereof. The said alteration or enlargement of building cannot be undertaken without proper permission of the Authority in terms of Section 4 of the Act. The appellant in the present case has enlarged the plinth area by raising the construction without seeking prior permission from the competent Authority required under section 4 of the Act and thus has created more space to the building what has been permitted to him by the respondents. The appellant cannot absolve himself from the offence committed by him while raising the construction as he has deviated the building permission to a large extent and thus, in the opinion of the Tribunal, committed major offence which is not compounded by any rational standard. 7. So far as the contention of the appellant that he has not grabbed any State land or the land of any neighbor is concerned, no doubt he has not encroached or grabbed the State land or the land of any neighbor, but the appellant has changed the entry gate when he has combined the: existing two storeyed shop line with the impugned building. It is hazardous to the neighbor and affect the society in general. By this construction, land use for which purpose the permission has been granted has been violated and as per Master Plan, this is residential area and paving way for transforming into the hub of commercial activity in a blatant violation of the Srinagar Master Plan. The appellant clearly manifest his intention of using the complex for commercial than for a hostel purpose. This is established from the deviation committed both from interior and outer structure besides combining front two storeyed shopping line with the main building and leasing it for some commercial purposes. So it is established that Master Plan of the Srinagar city has been violated. 8. This is established from the deviation committed both from interior and outer structure besides combining front two storeyed shopping line with the main building and leasing it for some commercial purposes. So it is established that Master Plan of the Srinagar city has been violated. 8. Another point which the appellant has raised in the appeal that he has not been provided proper chance of hearing as the notices under section 7 (1) and (3) of the Act have been served upon him on the same date viz. 08.03.2010, but from the perusal of the record, it is clear that the notice under section 7 (1) of the Act has been issued on 04-03-2010 and served upon the appellant on the same date whereas the impugned demolition notice has been issued on 08-03-2010 which has also been served upon the appellant on the same date. So the argument of Ld. Counsel for appellant that the said notices have not been served upon the appellant is belied by the record produced by the respondents. 9. Another important point has been raised by the Ld. Counsel for the appellant that respondent No. 3 is not competent to issue the notice for various reasons. 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 regulation made thereunder" 10. From the perusal of the impugned notice, it is clear that respondent No. 3 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. 11. Now we come to the deviation of the sanction plan. From the perusal of the impugned notice, it is clear that respondent No. 3 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. 11. Now we come to the deviation of the sanction plan. As per sanctioned plan, there is an approved measurement area of 2278 sqft and appellant has actually constructed the building on the plinth of 2668 sqft, so the deviations in each storey is 390 sqft and beyond that he has converted the attic floor into full floor which is also in addition to the above mentioned deviations, moreover, the shape of the building has also been changed from L-shape to square. 12. It is also worthwhile to mention here that this building has been constructed in the main locality in Karan Nagar area from where the office of Srinagar Municipal Corporation is not so far away and five storeyed building has been constructed in violation of the sanctioned plan. As per building permission, the building is to be constructed in the presence of Ward Officer of the area or the concerned Khilafwarzi Officer in strict accordance with the sanctioned plan at the initial stage but the said officers have not taken any pains with regard to the deviation committed by the appellant. They remained silent over the matter and if any action has been imitated against the erring officials has not reached to any conclusion, resultantly huge building has been erected in violation of the sanctioned plan. So I think it is the duty of the concerned authority to take action against the erring officials in accordance with law. 13. In Regulation 9 of the J&K Control of Building Operations (Revised) Regulations, 2001, the appellate authority can compound an offence of minor nature but if the same does not violate the approved land use of the area notified in the Srinagar Master Plan, but in view of the above discussion and perusal of the record, it is clear that appellant has raised the building in violation of the sanctioned plan and has not demolished the front side building which has been combined with the building and the basement of the impugned building has been converted into restaurant which indicate that appellant has violated the Master plan by changing the residential hostel building into commercial building. It is clear violation of the zoning regulations and moreover, he has changed the shape of the building into square instead of L-shape and there is also deviation of 390 feet in each floor and attic floor is converted into full floor which seems to be major offence and cannot be compounded by any rational standard. 14. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the appeal having no merit is hereby dismissed. Stay order dated 11-03-2010 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.