ORDER 1. Appellant has preferred the instant appeal against the impugned notice MJ/CEO/61/3/2011 dated 8.2.2012 on the ground that appellant is owner in possession of plot bearing No. 15-A Sector-7 situated at Trikuta nagar, Jammu and in order to develop the aforementioned plot , the appellant applied for necessary sanction from the respondent herein and sanction was duly granted in favour of the appellant vide no. 1093/BS-2010 dated 22 Nov.2010. Further stated that after the said sanction appellant started raising construction on the afore said plot and had completed the whole of the construction work. Further stated that appellant was shocked to receive the notice dated 8.2.2012 u/s 7 (3) of COBO Act and notice has been assailed on the ground that impugned notice is against the fact and law and liable to set aside. Impugned notice gas been passed arbitrarily without giving a notice u/s 7 (1) of COBO Act. Further stated that plot area us 1800 Sft and appellant is entitled to raise the construction up to 65% of the plot area and appellant is entitled to cover 1170 Sft. Of the plot area. Moreover, appellant have kept the set backs on both the sides of the plot and an additional cut out area 6X6 Sft. And respondents have not considered the factual position. Further stated that the respondents has further issued notice u/s 7 (1) of COBA Act dated 31st May, 2011 and impugned notice has been issued on 8th Feb, 2012 after a lapse of 10 months and impugned notice us liable to set aside. 2. Respondents have filed written objections and referred para 3 and 4 of the objections for ready reference: Para 3 That the appellant was permitted to raise residential construction vide order no. 1093/BS/2010 dated 22.11.2010 at 15-A Sector-7 Trikuta nagar, Jammu. The total plot area is 1583 sq.Ft. The appellant had to cover 893 Sqft at ground floor, first floor and second floor, but the appellant has covered 1100 Sft. At ground, first and second floor each i.e 23.18% excess at ground floor, first floor and second floor each. 4. That the appellant has to maintain the setbacks as under; a- Front Set back = 11'-6" b- Rear set back = 5" 3. The appellant has not maintained the proper setback and thus has committed major violation of master plan. At ground, first and second floor each i.e 23.18% excess at ground floor, first floor and second floor each. 4. That the appellant has to maintain the setbacks as under; a- Front Set back = 11'-6" b- Rear set back = 5" 3. The appellant has not maintained the proper setback and thus has committed major violation of master plan. The appellant has violated the provisions of J&K Control of Building Operation Act, 1988 and J&K Control of Building Operations Regulation, 1998. The appellant has made following violations. These are: S.No. Particulars As per master plan As per site Quantum of violation In sft. %age 1. Plot area 1583 Sft. 2. Coverage a) Ground floor 893 Sft. 1100 Sft. 207 Sft. 23.18% b) First floor 893 Sft. 1100 Sft. 207 Sft. 23.18% c) Second floor 893 Sft. 1100 Sft. 207 Sft. 23.18% 3. a) Front set back 11'-6" 5'.6" 6'.0" 52% b) Rear set back 5'.0" Nil 5'-0" 100% c) Side set back nil Nil nil nil Other side nil Nil nil nil 4. a) Land Use Residential Under construction 5. Height 36'-0" 33'-0" Nil Nil 6. FAR 169.23 Nil Nil Nil 4. Learned counsel of the appellant had argued that while raising the construction minor deviation has taken place and does not effects the rights of public at large. 5. Further argued that violation shown against the appellant is minor in nature and same can allowed to be compounded. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has further argued that in the light of judgment reported in (2005) 7 Supreme Court cases page 110 Kewal Krishan Gupta v. J&K Special Tribunal and others. Para 16 is reported hereunder: 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. 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 Further argued that appellant is holding a plot area of 1800 Sft. And appellant is entitled to raise the construction over more than 65% of the plot area as per the master plan and in case appeal of the appellant is not allowed appellant would suffer unnecessarily financial loss whereas the wile the construction was in progress, the respondents had not objected the construction work and when the appellant has completed the construction work, the respondents have issued the impugned notice. Further argued that there is no violation in the height of the building, floor area as well as of land use as the appellant had been permitted to raise the residential building. 7. From the perusal of the file, it reveals that impugned notice has been issued to the appellant on the basis of complaint. Learned counsel for the respondent has argued that appellant's appeal deserves to be dismissed as the appellant have violated the terms and conditions of the sanctioned plan. 8. I have heard and perused the file. Since the construction is complete in all respects and appellant is holding the plot of 1800 Sft as per the land deed registered on 13.10.2010 and violation shown against the appellant is not a major one, accordingly, the appeal is allowed and violation of 621 Sft. is compounded @ Rs.. 40/- per sft. Appellant is directed to deposit the compounding fee with respondent within two months i.e. 621x40= Rs. 24,840/- failing which the respondents are at liberty to take appropriate action against the appellant. is compounded @ Rs.. 40/- per sft. Appellant is directed to deposit the compounding fee with respondent within two months i.e. 621x40= Rs. 24,840/- failing which the respondents are at liberty to take appropriate action against the appellant. Appeal is disposed of accordingly and file be consigned to records after due completion and file of the JMC be sent back alongwith a copy of this order.