ORDER 1. Brief facts of the case narrated in the appeal that appellant had purchased house no. 679-B/A, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu vide sale deed duly registered from the Court of Sub Registrar, City Jammu on 12.10. 1988 on the basis of site plan appended herewith. Appellant after purchasing the aforesaid house renovated the same but respondent herein issued notice No. 150/4/KWO/92 on 21.11.1992 and said notice was challenged before Hon'ble Forum and on 2nd April, 1993 regularized the unauthorized structure raised on the rear set back by compounding the same. 2. Further stated that appellant applied for the permission for construction of first floor, 2nd floor upon the existing single stories residential house upon the said plot, which was sanctioned under the signatures of Senior Town Planner, Jammu Municipal Corporation, under no. 327/BS/11 dated 3.09.2011, the copy of sanction order is enclosed as Annexure-C and also stated that appellant has raised the construction in accordance with the site plan of both the floor, in alignment of other houses and within the precincts of the ground floor and the construction of the house since been completed and the appellant and his family are residing there in after having completed the construction. 3. Further stated that respondents herein never served any notice upon the appellant under no. MJ/CEO/51/1-2/2012 dated 11.12.2012 as mentioned in the impugned notice. Appellant had received the impugned notice only on 24.1.2012 and the appeal has been filed within the period of limitation. Impugned notice is against the rules of principle of natural justice as the same has been passed without affording the appellant an opportunity of being heard and stated that appellant has not committed any khilafwarzi warranting the respondents to issue notice as contemplated u/s 7(3) of the Act. Further it stated that appellant has violated the land use by way of any encroachment, extension or by any other means and if there is any violation, same may be treated as minor violation. 4. Respondents have filed their objections and admitted that appellant as permitted to raise the construction as per plan no. 327/BS/2011 dated 3.9.2011 at plot no. 679, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu and total plot area is 2925 Sft. and appellant was permitted to cover 2183 Sft. 4. Respondents have filed their objections and admitted that appellant as permitted to raise the construction as per plan no. 327/BS/2011 dated 3.9.2011 at plot no. 679, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu and total plot area is 2925 Sft. and appellant was permitted to cover 2183 Sft. at ground floor but appellant has covered 2939 Sft at ground floor and was permitted to cover 1637 at First floor and 1318 Sft at second floor but appellant in violation thereof covered 2376 Sft at first floor and 2194 at second floor and set backs which were required to be maintained by the appellant were as under: a- Front set back.. 18 ft. b- Rear set back.. 10 ft. c- Side set back.. 10 ft. 5. But the appellant has left set backs as; 14'-03", rear set back nil and side set backs as 10'-6". 6. Detail of the violation is shown in para 6 and 7 of the written objections is reproduced hereunder for ready reference: S.No. Particulars Permissible as per Master Plan As per site Quantum of violation In sft. %age 1. Plot area 2925 Sft. 2. Coverage a) Ground floor. 2183 Sft. 2939 Sft. Old Construction b) First Floor 1637 Sft. 2376 sft. 739 Sft 57.4% c) Second floor 1318 Sft. 2194 sft. 876 54.5% 3. a) Front set back 18 Ft. 14'-41 for 14'-3"10"-7" for 17'-10" b) Rear set back 10ft. Nil for 33"-10" 13'-4" for 11'-11" c) side set back 10ft. 10'-6" for 37"-3" Nil for 45"-09" 4. a) Land Use Residential Residential b) Height 40' 40 Ft. nil Nil c) FAR 175.6 256.7 81.1 46.1 7. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the appellant has raised the construction after seeking the proper permission from the respondents and due to the family compulsion the appellant has raised the construction in excess to the sanctioned plan under compulsion in order to accommodate the family and in case the appeal is not allowed the appellant's hard earned money invested over the construction would go in waste and appellant would suffer financial loss as well as mental agony. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has argued that appellant's appeal be dismissed and respondents be permitted to demolish the construction raised in violation of the sanctioned plan. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant has further argued that in the interest of justice, appellant's case be compounded. 10. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has argued that appellant's appeal be dismissed and respondents be permitted to demolish the construction raised in violation of the sanctioned plan. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant has further argued that in the interest of justice, appellant's case be compounded. 10. Keeping in view the facts of the case and law of the land, there is no complaint against the appellant and appellant has raised the construction behind the plot area, as the first floor and 2nd floor constructed by the appellant are an old building which is 2925 Sft whereas the set backs are required to be maintained at ground floor and maintaining the set backs in the space is immaterial. 11. Keeping in view the facts, the instant appeal is allowed and the violation made bay the appellant is compounded at the rate of Rs. 40- per Sft. and the appellant is directed to deposit the compounding of Rs. 1615 X 40 = Rs. 64,600/- with the respondent within the period of two months failing which respondents are at liberty to take action under rules. File shall be consigned to records and records of the JMC be returned forthwith alongwith a copy of this Order.