ORDER 1. This order will dispose of the appeal filed by the appellant on the grounds that appellant is not in possession of the building mentioned in the sale deed, Copy is annexed as Annexure "B". The appellant had applied for sanction for the construction of commercial building and sanction was granted by the B O C A for the construction of the building. Copy of the sanction/permission plan annexed at Annexure "C". Further stated that after obtaining the permission from the Jammu Municipal Corporation appellant had constructed 2nd floor strictly as per permission granted by Jammu Municipal Corporation and no violation has been committed by the appellant pertaining to ground floor, first floor and 2nd floor. Only violation which the appellant has committed is that appellant has also raised temporary servant quarter and a store at 3rd floor that too under the ambit of Jammu master plan without disturbing the set back line. Prior to the order passed under section 7 (3) no show cause notice has ever been served upon the appellant which is the mandatory provisions of law as no one shall be condemned unheard. 2. Further stated that impugned notice does not disclose that which part of the property and what place and location, the construction is bad and requires to be removed. The impugned order is contrary to the facts of the case and position existing on spot. Appellant had not indulged in any violation of any law in raising the construction. 3. Moreover the impugned notice does not spell out any violation regarding any kind of construction, re-erection on the subject matter least to talk of any violation of building bye-laws. 4. Respondent have filed objection stating therein that the appellant have been served a proper notice issued to on 11th June, 2012 and 12th July, 2012 whereby appellant violator was asked to demolish the unauthorized construction. Appellant was permitted to raise the commercial construction as per plan no. 127/BSD/2012 dated 12.5.2012 at Panj Bhaktar road Jammu. Para -4 of the objections/ written arguments submitted by respondents is reproduced hereunder: "That the appellant has covered more area than permitted by JMC and also raised structure at third floor without seeking any permission from JMC, thus the appellant has committed violation of permission granted by the JMC. 127/BSD/2012 dated 12.5.2012 at Panj Bhaktar road Jammu. Para -4 of the objections/ written arguments submitted by respondents is reproduced hereunder: "That the appellant has covered more area than permitted by JMC and also raised structure at third floor without seeking any permission from JMC, thus the appellant has committed violation of permission granted by the JMC. The appellant has violated the provision of J&K Control of Building Operation Act, 1988 and J&K Control of Building Operations Regulations 1998. The appellant has made following violations. These are: S.No. Particulars As per permission As per site Quantum of violation In sft. %age 1. Plot area 1462 sft 2. Coverage a) Ground floor. 990 Sft. 1061 Sft. 71 Sft. 15% b) First Floor 1100Sft. 1116 Sft. 16 Sft. 4.4% C) second floor 990 Sft. 1116 Sft 126 Sft 26.6% d) third floor nil 877 Sft. 877 Sft. 100% 3. a) Front set back 10'-4 1/2'" 10'-4 1/2'" Nil Nil b) Rear set back 5'-0" 5'-0" Nil Nil c) side set back Nil Nil Nil Nil Other side Nil Nil Nil Nil 4. a) Land Use Commercial Commercial b) Height 35'-9" 40' -- 9" 5'-o" 13.9% c) FAR 210.67 285.22 74.55 35.3% 5. That the total violation committed by the appellant is as under: Total plot area -- 1462 Sft. Violation at Ground floor -- 71 Sft. (commercial) Violation at First floor -- 16 Sft.(commercial) Violation at second floor. -- 126 Sft.(commercial) Violation at Third floor. -- 877 Sft.(commercial) Total violation. -- 1090 Sft.(commercial) 6. From the perusal of the report, it reveals that there is no violations regarding front set back, rear set back and side set back. But appellant has raised the construction in excess to the sanctioned plan and its detailed is given at para 4 which is referred above. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that appellant is the owner in possession and had obtained the permission from the respondent for raising the construction of commercial building and had accorded the permission for constructing ground floor area to the tune of 990 Sft., first floor 1100 Sft. And 2nd floor: 990 Sft. As per approved plan NO. 127/BS/12 dated 12.5.2012 and set back left by the appellant: front side 10.4 1/2 sft, rear side 5 Sft. and side set back nil. 8. And 2nd floor: 990 Sft. As per approved plan NO. 127/BS/12 dated 12.5.2012 and set back left by the appellant: front side 10.4 1/2 sft, rear side 5 Sft. and side set back nil. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent argued that appeal of the appellant be dismissed as the appellant has violated terms and condition in the order of the permission accorded by the respondent. As the appellant was permitted to raise the construction over the plot; 9. As this Tribunal has jurisdiction to compound, the offence of minor nature specified Regulation II J&K Control of building Operation Regulations 1998. Regulation 11 (2) is reproduced hereunder: (2) For the purpose of these Regulations an Offence of a minor nature shall include any erection or re-erection of the building which has taken place in violation of permission referred ion section 4 of the Act or deemed permission as referred in Sub-clause (2) of clause(7) of these Regulations provided that such erection or re-erection:- (i) does not violate the approved land-use of area as notified in the Master plan or Town Planning scheme; (ii) does not violate the permissible front, rear or side set backs prescribed in the bye-laws: (iii) does not violate by more than 10% the permissible grounds coverage as prescribed in the bye-laws; and (iv) does not violate the permissible height of the building as prescribed in the bye-laws. 10. But as per approved plan, appellant has constructed the building in excess of the sanctioned plan and details of the violation is given in para-4 and third floor has been raised without permission which is 877 Sft.: 100% violations. Further argued that the appellant was required to raise the building up to 45 `-9", whereas appellant has constructed the building up to height of 40'-9" and height of the building : 5" in excess which deserved to be removed. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that in case that appellants not compounded, the appellant would suffer financial loss. As the appellant has been not stopped by the respondent, and respondents were knowing this fact that appellant is constructing the building for commercial use and prayed for compounding the construction raised without permission and total violations committed by the appellant is given in para 5 of the objections filed by the respondent as above and this position has not been controverted / refuted by the appellant. 12. 12. In support of the arguments, learned counsel for the appellant has referred a judgment report in AIR 2005 Supreme Court 2578 : 2004 (2) JKJ HC-443 (DB) titled Kewal Krishan Gupta v. Jammu and Kashmir Special Tribunal and others relevant para 16 of the judgment is reproduced hereunder for ready reference; 16. Finally, apart from these reasons for which the impugned judgment is liable to be faulted, our attention was drawn by the learned counsel for the appellant to notification dated 9.8.2004, SRO- 263 issued by the Commissioner and Secretary to the Govt. of Jammu and Kashmir by which the master plan for Jammu; 2021 has been published. Paragraph 6.9.11 at page 81 of the said master plan specifically provides that B.C. road area is earmarked as special area to be developed as a mixed used zone having residential, commercial, light industry, institutional and other uses. The phase of rapid growth of industrial development also make it unnecessary for permitting demolition of the structure even if it be in contravention of the provisions of the Act or the zone provisions in the previous master plan. Considered from all angles, it appeared that the High Court need not have taken an activist role in directing demolition of the offending structure which had been permitted to be compounded by the competent authority namely, the Tribunal. 13. There is no dispute that appellant has erected the building without permission while raising building to some extent deviation are sound to take place, why a civilized person would spent huge money without any purpose. The respondents have awaken from deep slumber, when construction of building is almost complete in all respect. Respondents have nowhere stated that appellant have violated the provision of town plan wing scheme or master pan. 14. Keeping in view of facts of case, present appeal is allowed and constructions raised in contravention of approved plan is compounded @ Rs. 75X1090= Rs. 81750/- as the construction raised on site is of commercial nature. Appellant will deposit the compound fee as Rs. 81750/- within period of two months from date of order. Record file of the respondent may be sent back and office file shall consigned to records after due compilation.