ORDER 1. Brief facts of the case is that appellant has preferred an appeal for setting aside the order dated MJ/CEO/199/3/2011 dated 3.10.2011 on the grounds that the respondent had issued notice under section 12 (1) and 7 (1) of J&K Control of Building Operation Act upon the appellant in the month of July, 2011 i.e. 16th of July, 2011. Appellant on receiving the notice, approached the respondent authority and shown them the sanctioned plan satisfied them regarding the alleged construction which was nothing but minor repairs of the old structure without changing the alignment and without dismantling the old structure and the same was allowed by the respondent at that time. Appellant has received a notice u/s 7 (3) of J&K Control of Building Operation Act whereby the appellant was directed to demolish the entire building. Despite the facts, no new construction had been carried out other than minor repairs. Respondent had served the impugned notice after lapse of almost three months from the date of first notice u/s 12 (1) & 7 (1) of J&K Control of Building Operation Act which clearly shows malafide on the part of respondent authorities. The impugned order is vague , does not contain description of the Khilafwarzi which the respondent intends to demolish. Appellant is owner in possession of the plot by virtue of sale deed executed on 13th April, 2011. The erstwhile owners had raised the construction in accordance to the site plan duly sanctioned by the respondent authorities and the respondent without ascertaining the true position existing on spot has served the notice of demolition on the appellant against the provision of law. Respondents file their objections stating therein that notice u/s 7 (1) and 12 (1) of J&K Control of Building operation Act had been given to the appellant on 16 July, 2011 but the appellant failed to file any reply of the notice and accordingly final notice u/s 7(3) of COBA had been issued on 3.10.2011 and served upon the appellant On 07.10.2011, Further stated that appellant was permitted to raise the residential construction at plot No. 21-D/C, Gandhinagar Jammu. And the appellant had to cover 464 sft. Area out of the total plots area 1120 Sft. But the appellant has covered 975 Sft. on the ground floor as well as on the first floor. And the appellant had to cover 464 sft. Area out of the total plots area 1120 Sft. But the appellant has covered 975 Sft. on the ground floor as well as on the first floor. Appellant was required to keep the side set back 18'-10 =" but has left side set back 5'-3". The building is not in use and total violation committed by the appellant is 1022 Sft. Further stated that the appellant have raised the construction against the approved plan issued on the name of one Kamal Kishore bearing No. 594/BS/11 dated 20th August, 2011. 2. Learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that appellant had purchased the small piece of said plot from Brij Mohan Dass and Kamal Kishore Gupta and in case had left the side set backs, the appellant would had left with little space and while raising the construction over it, the appellant has not acted on sanctioned plan. Construction which has been raised by the appellant for accommodating the family members and there is no violation of prevention of Ribbon Development Act or Town Planning Act. The construction which has taken place is on his own plot and a there is no encroachment either on public road or the private land of any person. In case the appeal of the appellant is not allowed, the appellant would be put to suffer an irreparable loss. In support of the argument learned counsel for the appellant has further argued that in the light of judgment case of appellant be compounded. reported in (2005) 7 SCC 110 Kewal Krishan Gupta v. J&K Special Tribunal and others. Para 16 is reproduced as 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 and another judgment S.L.Nagpal v. J&K Special Tribunal others. Para 10 is reported hereunder: 10. Appeals: (1) An appeal against the order of authority made under section 5 and 7 of the Act shall lie before the Chairman of the J&K Special Tribunal or such other member of the said Tribunal as may be decided by the same Chairman. 3. The appellate authority may compound an offence of a minor nature specified in sub clause (2) of these Regulations: (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. 4. 4. On the other hand, Learned counsel for the respondent has argued that the appeal deserves to be dismissed as the appellant had committed the major violations and case of the appellant does not falls within the ambit of Regulation II J&K Control of Building Regulation 1998 and in case allowing the appeal of the appellant, a heavy penalty be imposed upon the appellant so that in future may not take law in his hands. No purpose would be served to dismantle the appellant building. It would amount injustice to him. It was the duty of the respondent to act in timely while the construction work was under progress and when the appellant had complete the construction have issued the impugned notice. Notice issued to the appellant shows that impugned notice has been issued after the lapse of three months and allowed the appellant to carry on the construction work. Respondent has awaked from deep slumber when appellant had completed the construction work. 5. Keeping in view the facts of the case, the instant appeal is allowed and violation is compounded @ Rs. 40/- per Sft. i.e. 1022 Sft. X 40 = 40,880. Appellant is directed to pay compound fee as Rs. 40,880/- within a period of two months from the date of the order, failure to do so, respondents are at liberty to take appropriate steps. Appeal is disposed of accordingly and record file of the JMC be returned forth with alongwith a copy of Order. Office file be consigned to records after due compilation.