Muzaffar Hussain Attar, J. 1. The Jammu Municipal Corporation through its authorities sent a notice to respondent No. 1-writ petitioner asking him to demolish the structure comprising of one garage (room) measuring 17' x9'-9" with attached toilet measuring 3'-6"x7' having been raised without seeking building permission from the competent authority. It is also stated in the notice that said unauthorized construction has been raised in the rear setbacks area of the plot. 2. Being aggrieved of the notice/order of demolition dated 22.12.1998, writ petitioner-respondent filed statutory appeal before the J&K Special Tribunal, Jammu. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the matter, the learned Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the respondent-writ petitioner vide order dated 12.05.1999. The said order is taken note of. "Before Amit Kushari, Chairman J&K Special Tribunal, Jammu." File No. Date of Instt. Date of decision STJ/367/98 23.12.98 12.05.1999 S/O Sh. Bhushan Chander R/o 30-A/D Gandhi Nagar, Jammu ......Appellant Vs. Executive Officer, Municipality, Jammu ......Respondent. Appeal against the order/notice No. 99/4/KWO/98 dated 22.12.1998 passed by the Executive Officer Jammu Municipality. ORDER Arguments of Shri Anil Sharma, Advocate for the appellant as well as the arguments of Sh. K. B. Gupta, Advocate for the Jammu Municipality were heard and the records available on the file were also gone through. From the arguments of advocates for the parties and the records available on the file the following facts have emerged:- The appellant herein in September, 1988 through a registered sale deed purchased a residential house bearing No. 30 A/D situated at Gandhinagar, Jammu comprising of two rooms, on drawing room, a garage and compound. Recently the appellant has raised the construction of a room measuring 17'x9'-9" with attached toilet measuring 3'-6"x7' without seeking any building permission from the competent authority in the rear setback area of the plot. Sh. Anit Sharma, Advocate for the appellant stated that although the construction has been raised without seeking building permission from the Jammu Municipality, but his being a minor offence which may be compounded. Mr. Sharma further stated that the construction is in his own plot and no encroachment has been pointed out by the Jammu Municipality in its report. While rebutting Sh. K. B. Gupta, advocate for the Jammu Municipality stated that the appellant has committed a serious offence by raising construction unauthorizedly in the rear as well as side set back area of the plot, Mr. While rebutting Sh. K. B. Gupta, advocate for the Jammu Municipality stated that the appellant has committed a serious offence by raising construction unauthorizedly in the rear as well as side set back area of the plot, Mr. Gupta also highlighted the provisions of SROs of Housing and Urban development department dated 14.1.1997 and 28.05.1998 and stated that the present construction has been raised after the issuance of said SROs and so the offence has to be treated as major and cannot be compounded. I have considered the arguments advanced by both the advocates for the parties and have also considered the records available on the file. During the course of arguments the advocate for the appellant has admitted before the undersigned that the appellant has raised the construction in the side and rear set back area of the plot and that too without seeking any building permission from the Jammu Municipality. It has also been admitted by the advocate for the appellant that the offence was committed by the appellant in December, 1998. The SRO's of Housing and Urban Development Department J&K dated 14.01.1997 and 28.05.1998 are therefore quite applicable in the present case. As per the provisions of these SROs the present construction cannot be treated as a minor offence and so the request made by the advocate for the appellant for compounding the offence cannot be accepted. The appeal is therefore dismissed. The Jammu Municipality is directed to take immediate necessary steps to demolish the unauthorized construction of the room and the toilet. The demolition should be carried out preferably, before 16th of May, 1999. The record of the Jammu Municipality be returned alongwith a copy of this order. The file be consigned to records after due completion. Sd/- Announced 12.05.1999 (Amit Kushari) Chairman, J&K Special Tribunal. 3. The respondent-writ petitioner filed review petition before the J&K Special Tribunal seeking recalling of Order dated 12.05.1999. The Tribunal vide its order dated 16.06.1999 allowed the review petition by providing that the unauthorized constructed be compounded by Jammu Municipality @ Rs. 20/- per sqft. The writ petitioner-respondent was directed to deposit the amount with the Jammu Municipality before 16.08.1999. It was also provided that in case of failure of respondent-writ petitioner to deposit the aforesaid amount, the Jammu Municipality will be at liberty to demolish the unauthorized structure on 17 or 18th of August, 1999. 4. 20/- per sqft. The writ petitioner-respondent was directed to deposit the amount with the Jammu Municipality before 16.08.1999. It was also provided that in case of failure of respondent-writ petitioner to deposit the aforesaid amount, the Jammu Municipality will be at liberty to demolish the unauthorized structure on 17 or 18th of August, 1999. 4. Appellant herein feeling aggrieved of the order dated 16.06.1999 passed by the learned Tribunal, challenged the same in OWP No. 715/1999, which writ petition was allowed by the learned Writ Court vide order dated 19.04.2002 and order dated 16.6.1999 passed in the review petition was set aside. It was observed in the said order that respondent-writ petitioner can challenge order dated 12.05.1999 passed by the Tribunal in the forums available to him. 5. The writ petitioner-respondent challenged the order dated 12.05.1999 in OWP No. 1040/2002, in which the appellant was not impleaded as party. The learned Writ Court vide its judgment and order dated 05.04.2004 allowed the writ petition of the writ petitioner-respondent and set aside the order dated 12.05.1999. The learned Writ Court observed that nature of construction constitutes a minor offence and is compoundable. It is this order which is called in question by the appellant in this LPA. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that impugned judgment is illegal, inasmuch as, it has been passed without considering the provisions of Municipal Act as also Notification SRO No. 39 dated 14.01.1997. Learned counsel submitted that in terms of aforesaid SRO, amendment was made in the Jammu and Kashmir Municipal (Un-authorized Construction) Rule, 1997 (for short, the Rules of 1997). Learned counsel submitted that in terms of said SRO, explanation appended to Rule 3 was substituted which provides that an offence of minor nature shall include any erection or re-erection of a building which has taken place in violation of the sanction issued under Section 221 of the Jammu and Kashmir Municipal Act, Samvat 2008 (for short, Act of 2008) or deemed sanction under Section 222(4) of the said Act. Learned counsel submitted that it is, however, provided in the notification SRO 39 dated 14.01.1997 that such erection or re-erection would not be of a minor nature, in case, it violates the approved land use of area as notified in the Master Plan and if it violates the permissible front, rear or side setbacks prescribed in the bye-laws. Learned counsel submitted that it is, however, provided in the notification SRO 39 dated 14.01.1997 that such erection or re-erection would not be of a minor nature, in case, it violates the approved land use of area as notified in the Master Plan and if it violates the permissible front, rear or side setbacks prescribed in the bye-laws. Learned counsel also referred to Notification SRO 165 dated 28th May, 1998, whereunder the Government in exercise of powers conferred under Section 19 of the Jammu and Kashmir Control of Building Operation Act, 1988 (for short, the Act of 1988) and in supersession of Notification SRO 336 dated 28.11.1991 has made the regulations, called The Jammu and Kashmir Control of Building Operation Regulations, 1998 (for short, the regulations of 1998) and submitted that in terms of regulation 11, appellate authority is conferred with powers of compounding of an offence of a minor nature specified in sub Clause (2) of the regulations. Learned counsel submitted that an offence would not be minor and compoundable in case violation is of front, rear or side setbacks prescribed in the bye-laws. Learned counsel submitted that in view of the aforesaid legal and factual position, the violation committed by the respondent-writ petitioner cannot be said to be a minor offence and as such, could not be allowed to be compounded. Learned counsel prayed for setting aside the impugned judgment. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent-writ petitioner submitted that his client's purchased structure situated at Gandhi Nagar, Jammu comprising of two rooms, one drawing room, a garage and compound. Learned counsel submitted that immoveable property has been purchased through registered sale deed. Learned counsel submitted that no construction is raised by the respondent-writ petitioner in violation of any municipal/civic laws. Learned counsel submitted that even assuming for the sake of arguments that the construction of garage and toilet is raised unauthorisedly, but the same being a minor offence, the Writ Court was right in quashing the order of the Tribunal dated 12.05.1999. Learned counsel also submitted that the appellant had instituted a civil original suit on 24.12.1998 against the Jammu Municipality and the writ petitioner, wherein he had prayed for issuance of decree for mandatory injunction to direct the defendants therein to demolish the structure on southern side of their house without leaving 10' set back as laid down by the Municipal bye-laws. Learned counsel submitted that on the instructions of the counsel for the appellant, the suit was withdrawn as not pressed from the Court of Special Mobile Magistrate (1st Civil Subordinate Judge), Jammu vide order dated 08.11.2000. In these circumstances, the appellant is estopped from raising the issue and seeking demolition of the structure by filing Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment of the Writ Court. 8. In order to appreciate the issue raised at the Bar, the explanation below Rule 3 as substituted vide Notification SRO 39 dated 14.01.1997 and regulation 11 of the regulations 1998 are taken note of: "Explanation:- For purposes of this rule an offence of a minor nature shall include any erection or re-erection of a building which has taken place in violation of the sanction issued under section 221 of the Jammu and Kashmir Municipal Act, Samvat 2008 or deemed sanction under section 222 (4) of the said Act, provided that such erection or re-erection. a) Does not violate the approved land use of are as Notified in the Master Plan, b) Does not violate the permissible front, rear or side set backs prescribed in the bye-laws. c) Does not violate by more than 10% the permissible ground coverage as prescribed in the bye-laws. d) Does not violates the permissible height of the building as prescribed in the bye-laws and e) Does not pertain to an area which does not belong to the person concerned on ownership, lease hold, ground rent or any other legal basis." Regulation 11: "11. The appellate Authority may compound an offence of a minor nature specified in Sub Clause (2) of this Regulations. Provided that the compounding fee shall be worked out on the basis of rates to be notified by the Government. (2) For the purpose of this 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 in Section 4 of the Act or deemed permission as referred in sub Clause (2) of Clause 7 of this Regulations provided that such erection or erections. (2) For the purpose of this 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 in Section 4 of the Act or deemed permission as referred in sub Clause (2) of Clause 7 of this Regulations provided that such erection or erections. (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 ground coverage as prescribed in the bye-laws; and (iv) does not violate the permissible height of the building as prescribed in the bye-laws. 9. In a civilized society which is governed by rule of law, the rights of residents of an area for raising constructions whether for residential purpose or commercial purpose, are being regulated by civic laws. In order to ensure that the construction/structure are raised in a planned manner and to further ensure that basic human rights of an individual are efficaciously protected, civic/ municipal laws are being made. These laws are made in the interest of public at large. These laws and rules/regulations made thereunder have solemn purpose to achieve. Every human being has right to live and lead a life without any kind of interference from fellow human beings. The laws which are made to regulate constructions are also made to ensure and protect the civil rights of a person as well as the environment of the area. Municipal/civic laws, thus, require to be given effect to without any fail and without compromising with the mandate of such laws. 10. Order dated 12.05.1999 passed by the Tribunal in unequivocal terms reveal that respondent-writ petitioner has admitted before the Tribunal that he has raised construction of one garage (room) measuring 17'x9'-9" with attached toilet measuring 3'-6"x7' without seeking any building permission from the Competent Authority and such un-authorized construction has been raised in the rear set backs area of the plot. 11. Learned Writ Court has accepted the said position inasmuch as, it has treated it as a minor violation thus permissible to be compounded. 12. In view of the Notification SRO 39 dated 14.01.1997, violation of the permissible front, rear or side set backs is not an offence of minor nature. 11. Learned Writ Court has accepted the said position inasmuch as, it has treated it as a minor violation thus permissible to be compounded. 12. In view of the Notification SRO 39 dated 14.01.1997, violation of the permissible front, rear or side set backs is not an offence of minor nature. Similarly, in terms of regulation, it is not a minor offence, thus, cannot be allowed to be compounded. 13. In order dated 12.05.1999, it has also been admitted that the unauthorized construction has been raised in the rear set backs area of the plot and was recent. The Tribunal in these circumstances was right in holding that offence being not a minor could not be compounded and directed for demolition of the said construction. In order to ensure that the benefits flowing from the Municipal/civic laws are enjoyed by, the citizens/residents of the area, these laws are to be enforced with all earnestness. 14. The Writ Court has passed the impugned order on assumptions not supported either by law or by facts. 15. Contention of learned counsel for the writ petitioner-respondent that in view of withdrawal of the suit, the appellant is precluded from filing LPA, is misconceived, inasmuch as, respondent-writ petitioner filed statutory appeal before the Jammu and Kashmir Special Tribunal on 23.12.1998. The appellant herein instituted suit on 24.12.1998. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the writ petitioner-respondent on 12.05.1999, there was, thus, no requirement to pursue the civil suit by the appellant herein. Dismissal of suit as not pressed, in such circumstances, would not preclude the appellant herein to challenge the writ Court order as he was clothed with the right conferred upon him by municipal laws/civic laws as also order dated 12.05.1999 passed by the Tribunal. Dismissal of civil suit would not, thus, estop the appellant to challenge the impugned judgment, which has been passed on 05.04.2004. The appellant in view of the order dated 12.05.1999 passed by the Tribunal was not required to pursue the suit as the grievance projected therein was redressed by the Tribunal. The cause of action has definitely accrued to the appellant in filing this Letters Patent Appeal as order dated 12.05.1999 has been set aside by the learned Writ Court vide its judgment dated 05.04.2004. Principle underlining Order XXIII of Code of Civil Procedure would not be attracted in the facts of this case. 16. The cause of action has definitely accrued to the appellant in filing this Letters Patent Appeal as order dated 12.05.1999 has been set aside by the learned Writ Court vide its judgment dated 05.04.2004. Principle underlining Order XXIII of Code of Civil Procedure would not be attracted in the facts of this case. 16. For our above recorded reasons, the Letters Patent Appeal is allowed and impugned judgment dated 5th April, 2004 passed in OWP No. 1040/2002 is set aside. Consequently, writ petition stands dismissed.