1. Subject matter in the writ petition is order dated 15.10.2008 passed by respondent No.2- J&K Special Tribunal, Jammu (for short ‘Tribunal’) in appeal filed by respondent No.1 in case Jatinder Kumar Mittal v Buidling Operation Controlling Authority, Municipal Corporation, Jammu and others on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal. 2. It appears that respondent No.1 had purchased a house forming part of H.No.3-A/B, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu, measuring 20’ x 50’ along with two rooms and one kitchen constructed on the back side of the said house vide Sale Deed dated 04.06.2004 registered on 07.06.2004. Accordingly, he applied for permission to construct one additional room measuring 10’ x 10’ along with existing rooms and kitchen on the ground floor and one room on the first floor. Permission was granted by the respondents vide No. 608/BS/2005 dated 16.12.2005. During construction, Chief Khilafwarzi Officer made report that respondent No.1 has made some violation by fixing aluminum doors and frames in the house in order to convert the said building into commercial use. 3. Notice was issued to respondent No.1 who filed reply. After considering reply, appellant directed respondent No.1 to demolish the construction so raised. Feeling aggrieved, respondent No.1 filed appeal against said order before Tribunal, which was allowed vide order dated 15.10.2008 by holding that violation made in the building by respondent No.1 is of minor nature and, accordingly, compounded the same. Respondent No.1 had also made assurance that building is only for residential purpose and not for commercial purpose. 4. It is apt to reproduce para No.7, 12 and 13 of the judgment dated 15.10.2008 herein:- “7. It is an admitted fact that the appellant purchased a plot of land measuring 20’x50’ with two rooms and kitchen and constructed one additional room at the ground floor and one room at first floor after obtaining valid permission from the Authorities. The allegation against the appellant is that he has exceeded the constructed area than permitted in the sanctioned plan and has not kept the set backs as required. It is alleged that the appellant has kept 28’x6’ front set back instead of 35’ and has not kept rear set back of 5’ and side set back of 10’. In reply to this, the appellant has stated that he purchased the house and the size of the plot is small one measuring 20’x50’. It is alleged that the appellant has kept 28’x6’ front set back instead of 35’ and has not kept rear set back of 5’ and side set back of 10’. In reply to this, the appellant has stated that he purchased the house and the size of the plot is small one measuring 20’x50’. Two rooms and one kitchen on the back side of the house had already been constructed and there was no rear set back. He has further stated that when he sought permission for constructed of one additional room, the respondents were knowing that two rooms and one kitchen were already existing in the plot and there is no set backs. It is also stated that the total width of the plot is 20’ and the side set back cannot be kept. He has further stated that the front set back has been left more than the required one. 12. The respondents have also alleged that the appellant has fixed aluminium frames which means that he wants to use the building for commercial activities. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that although in the area adjacent to the building of the appellant a huge commercial complex has been constructed on the other side of the building in front of the road but the appellant never intends to use this building for commercial activities and that’s why he has constructed the house 28’-6” away from the road. The residential house of the appellant is situated adjacent to his residential house and this building has been made a part of that building. He has assured that the appellant never intends to use this building for commercial activities. In view of this assurance and also on mere apprehension, it cannot be said that the appellant wants to convert the residential building into commercial building and his right can be defeated. 13. For the foregoing reasons, I would hold that the violation made in the building by the appellant are of minor nature and are compoundable. Accordingly, the appeal is accepted and it is directed that the violations of the excess area measuring 330 sft. at the ground floor and 330 sft. on the first floor made by the appellant for the construction of building be compounded after charging a fee at the rate of Rs.25/- per sft. Accordingly, the appeal is accepted and it is directed that the violations of the excess area measuring 330 sft. at the ground floor and 330 sft. on the first floor made by the appellant for the construction of building be compounded after charging a fee at the rate of Rs.25/- per sft. The appellant shall pay compounding fee within a period of one month and on payment of said compounding fee unauthorised construction shall stand regularised. In default of payment of compounding fee, the respondents may demolish the excess area of construction in view of relevant provisions of law.” 5. I have gone through entire record as also impugned judgment and am of the considered view that the Tribunal has passed a well reasoned judgment, which needs no interference. Accordingly, writ petition on hand is dismissed along with connected CMA(s). 6. Registry to send down the records along with copy of this order.