1. This appeal is directed against the order bearing No. SMC/KH/904-07 dated 11-11-2006 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 appellants were owners of a three storeyed old structure which was in a dilapidated condition and after the major earth quake on 08-10-2005, the same was about to collapse, as such, they approached the respondents for reconstruction of the same and accordingly obtained building permission order No. 350 of 2006 dated 07-07-2006 for the said purpose after complying with all the requisite formalities, but when the appellants started the proposed construction, the appellants were constrained to make some minor deviations in the proposed structure on the advice of technical experts. However, the respondents issued two notices to appellant No. 1 under section 7 (1) and (3) of the Act. The Appellants are 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 respondent No. 3 has erred both on facts and law which resulted in issuance of the impugned notice and the same is legally misconceived and factually unfounded. The impugned notice is outcome of ignorance of law besides appreciation of untrue facts. Satisfaction has not been recorded as required before passing the impugned order and the same has been issued in a most mechanical and cursory way that too by an incompetent authority/person as the respondent No. 3 is not competent to pass such orders under law. It is the BOCA who has the power to record satisfaction and accordingly pass orders and not respondent No. 3 as the satisfaction cannot be delegated/sub-delegated by a statutory authority defined under the Act to anyone else. The notices under section 7 (1) and (3) of the Act have been served upon the appellant on the same day as such, opportunity of being heard has not been granted to the appellants. The notices under section 7 (1) and (3) of the Act have been served upon the appellant on the same day as such, opportunity of being heard has not been granted to the appellants. The construction in question belongs to various persons but the impugned notice has been issued only against three appellants, as such, the other appellants have been condemned unheard and if the impugned notice is carried out, the rights and interests of other appellants will be affected. The respondents have slept over the matter as they have not objected to at the relevant point of time to stop the appellants from committing alleged violation though minor in nature as the respondents are armed with statutory power more particularly under section 12 of the Act which they could have invoked in stopping the appellants. Having not done so, the respondents cannot now turn the table and ask the appellants to demolish the building as that would be against the spirit of law and statute besides rule of estoppel will apply to the conduct of respondents as the appellants have been allowed to raise the construction and now cannot be asked to alter the position to their disadvantage. The appellants have raised the construction on their proprietary land and have not encroached upon any State/Municipals/Private land and the deviation being minor in nature is compoundable. 3. Standing counsel for the respondents Mr. M. A. Kirmani has submitted his counter objections alleging that an appeal of the appellants is not maintainable for being legally and factually wrong and in correct and deserves to be dismissed as the appellants have deviated the permission granted to them for the reconstruction of existing three storeyed residential house having two shops in ground floor. 4. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties and have perused the material on the record. 5. In the instant case, it is not disputed that appellants have raised the construction after obtaining the proper building permission. There is no dispute with regard to the land of the appellants, likewise there is no variance regarding the approved land use of the area vis-a`-vis said construction. 5. In the instant case, it is not disputed that appellants have raised the construction after obtaining the proper building permission. There is no dispute with regard to the land of the appellants, likewise there is no variance regarding the approved land use of the area vis-a`-vis said construction. But in the instant case, the respondents have submitted that permission was granted in favour of the appellants to raise the construction on plinth area of 649 sqft, whereas the appellants have raised the construction only on the plinth area of 825 sqft, as such, have deviated the building permission by 176 sqft per storey. So admittedly, there is deviation in the permission granted by the respondents. However, the respondents remained silent unless and until the appellants have completed the house as no effective steps were taken to stop the same. 6. In these circumstances, having regard to over all facts and circumstances of the case, the respondents remained mute spectators until the house has been completed by the appellants. Moreover, from the conduct of the respondents, it smacks that the construction has been raised with the connivance of the ward officer concerned. 7. The Ld. Counsel for the appellants further submitted that since Rule 9 of J&K Control of Building Operations (Revised Regulations) 2001 empowers this Tribunal to compound the deviation which may occur in any case like the present one, it will be in the interest of justice to compound the deviation in question. While arguing the appeal, the Ld. Counsel for the appellant infact mainly contended that in the overall circumstances of the case, the deviation made by the appellants need to be compounded as same will be in the interest of justice and will advance the cause of justice. As per the Ld. Counsel for the appellants, there is no violation of Master Plan or Zoning regulation. I think the respondents are a party in committing these deviations because it was their duty to remain vigilant while appellants were raising the construction. As per appellants, the respondents have remained mute spectator until the house has been completed. 8. Keeping in mind the whole circumstances of the case, the deviation made by the appellants does not seem to be major offence, but is a minor deviation of the permission granted by the Authority. As per appellants, the respondents have remained mute spectator until the house has been completed. 8. Keeping in mind the whole circumstances of the case, the deviation made by the appellants does not seem to be major offence, but is a minor deviation of the permission granted by the Authority. When it is a deviation of minor nature, I think deviation made by the appellants need to be compounded as the same will be in the interests of justice and will advance the cause of justice and if the deviations are not compounded and any other course adopted in the case will work only injustice. 9. Having regard to the fact that the appellants have now completed the construction, it would be most unfair and harsh if respondents are allowed to pull down the house for the deviation made by the appellants in the case and keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances of the case as discussed above, this Tribunal is of the opinion that the deviation should be compounded on payment of composition fee. 10. Viewed thus, in the circumstances of the case as discussed above, this Tribunal is inclined to compound the deviation made in the house subject to payment of composition fee. The appellants were suppose to raise the construction on the plinth area of 649 sqft whereas they have raised the construction on the plinth area of 825 sqft, thus has made deviation of 176 sqft in each storey. Accordingly, the appellants shall pay composition fee @ Rs. 25/- which worked out as 176 sqft x 2 storeyes (352 sqft) and Rs. 50/-for the ground floor (176 sqft), as such, the total composition fee works out as Rs. 25 x 352 sqft which calculates to Rs. 8,800/- (Rupees Eight thousand and eight hundred only) and Rs. 50 x 176 sqft which calculates to Rs. 8,800/- (Rupees Eight thousand and eight hundred only), thus making total composition fee as Rs. 17, 600/- (Rupees Seventeen thousand and six hundred only). 11. Therefore, the total composition fee amounting to Rs. 17, 600/-(Rupees Seventeen thousand and six hundred only) shall be deposited by the appellant in the Addl. 50 x 176 sqft which calculates to Rs. 8,800/- (Rupees Eight thousand and eight hundred only), thus making total composition fee as Rs. 17, 600/- (Rupees Seventeen thousand and six hundred only). 11. Therefore, the total composition fee amounting to Rs. 17, 600/-(Rupees Seventeen thousand and six hundred 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 11-11-2006 passed by respondent No. 3 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.