ORDER : 1. The challenge in this petition is to order dated 29.08.2005 passed by the Jammu and Kashmir, Special Tribunal, Jammu (hereinafter referred to as "Tribunal"), whereby it directed compounding of violation of construction committed by respondent No. 1. 2. The case of petitioner-authority is that on 03.08.2002, respondent No. 1 without obtaining permission from the authority had started construction of three rooms, kitchen, bathroom to which a Notice dated 03.08.2002; under Section 7(1) to show-cause and Notice dated 03.08.2002 under Section 12(1) of the Jammu and Kashmir Control of Building Act, 1988 to discontinue the construction, were served upon him (respondent No. 1). Respondent, unmindful of notices, did not stop the construction. Thereafter, Notice dated 03.09.2002 was issued for demolition of the construction so raised. Further case of the petitioner-Authority is that respondent No. 1 has raised the construction without obtaining any building permission from the authority and without keeping rear setbacks and both side setbacks. It is also contended that the front setbacks have also not been maintained as per the prescribed norms of minimum 10 feets. It is further contended that committing of violation of the setbacks is a major violation as per the prescribed Building Bye-Laws and Jammu and Kashmir Control of Building Regulations, 1998. It is also contended that order impugned is against law and facts as respondent No. 1 has covered 70% of the plot area whereas the permissible limits as per the prescribed Building Bye-Laws is 60% and respondent No. 2-Tribunal, could have at the most compounded the violation up to 5% beyond permissible limit @ Rs. 50/- per sq. ft and beyond 5% to 10% @ Rs. 100/- per sq. feet, but, only in case of residential building as per Rule 5(iv) of Jammu and Kashmir Municipal (Unauthorized Construction) Rules 1977. For commercial and industrial building, the penalty shall be two times the rates for residential buildings. It is further case of the petitioner-authority that respondent No. 1 is raising apartments, which is commercial activity, but, learned Tribunal-respondent No. 2, without going into the merits of the case, compounded the violation, which was major. It is contended that instead of maintaining proper set-backs by respondent No. 1, he deviated from the prescribed Building Bye-Laws, thus, has violated the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Control of Building Operation Act, 1988 and Jammu and Kashmir Control of Building Operations Regulations, 1998. It is contended that instead of maintaining proper set-backs by respondent No. 1, he deviated from the prescribed Building Bye-Laws, thus, has violated the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Control of Building Operation Act, 1988 and Jammu and Kashmir Control of Building Operations Regulations, 1998. Accordingly, petitioner-authority issued the Show Cause Notices to respondent No. 1 under Sections 7(1) and 12(1) of the Act to discontinue the operation of unauthorized construction. It is pleaded that against the said Notices, respondent No. 1 preferred an Appeal before the learned Tribunal, and the learned Tribunal vide its order dated 29.08.2005, impugned herein, directed compounding of violation committed by respondent No. 1. It is this order, which is under challenge in the present petition. 3. The ground taken by the petitioner-authority is that no appeal lies against the Notices under Section 7(1) and 12(1) of the Act, but, the learned Tribunal entertained the same without jurisdiction. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner-authority, while referring to Regulations 10 and 11 of the Jammu and Kashmir Control of Building Operations Regulations, has argued that the learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate the said Regulations while passing the impugned order. It is contended that although the learned Tribunal has the power to regularise the violation of minor nature, i.e. up to 10%, but, it cannot direct the petitioner Authority to regularise such violation, which is more than 10% of the sanctioned limit. 4. Reply, filed by respondent No. 1, controverts the stand taken by the petitioner. It is admitted that 70% of the plot area has been covered and construction raised was as a residential building, therefore, violation was only to the extent of 10% and it was within the discretion of respondent No. 2 to fix the compounding fee. Violations, thus, are of minor in nature and could be safely compounded and respondent No. 2 has rightly compounded the same. It is insisted that the learned Tribunal has rightly considered and decided the appeal filed by respondent No. 1. It is urged that there is no infringement of any provision of law as admissible to the field and the present petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the file. 6. It is insisted that the learned Tribunal has rightly considered and decided the appeal filed by respondent No. 1. It is urged that there is no infringement of any provision of law as admissible to the field and the present petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the file. 6. Before proceeding further, it would be relevant to reproduce Regulation 11(2) of J&K Control of Building Operations Regulations, 1998 so as to properly adjudicate the case in hand. "11(2). For the purpose of these Regulations an offence of a minor nature shall in elude any erection or re-erection of the building which has taken place in violation of per-mission referred in 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 setbacks prescribed in the bye-laws. (iii) does not violate by more than 10% the permissible grounds coverage as prescribed in the bye-laws. (iv) does not violate the permissible height of the building as prescribed in the bye-laws." 7. A plain reading of the aforesaid Regulation provides that if any construction is raised in violation of the Master Plan, Town Planning Scheme or if it violates the permissible front, rear or side setbacks prescribed in the bye-laws, or the construction violates more than 10% of the permissible ground coverage or it violates the permissible height of the building as prescribed in the bye-laws, the same are to be considered as major violations and cannot be compounded. 8. It shows that there is a vacant plot area as claimed by respondent No. 1. He has also maintained setbacks to some extent keeping in view the dimension of the plot. It be further seen that the learned Tribunal has found that respondent No. 1 having committed violations, which are minor in nature and has thus compounded the same. The argument of Mr. Nanda, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, is that violation with respect to the permissible front-Tear and sides of the setbacks is prescribed in the bye-laws and cannot be termed to be minor violation, capable of being compounded by the appellate authority. The argument of Mr. Nanda, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, is that violation with respect to the permissible front-Tear and sides of the setbacks is prescribed in the bye-laws and cannot be termed to be minor violation, capable of being compounded by the appellate authority. However, during the course of arguments, the relevant Bye-laws, prescribing permissible front, rear and sides of the setbacks, have not been brought to the notice of this Court nor has same been indicated in the writ petition. Permissible front, rear and sides of the setbacks would only bearing on the size of the plot. Small plots are accepted to leave open space by way of front, rear and sides of the setbacks commensurate to their sizes and there could be no universal application of the permissible setbacks to the plots of all sizes. The onus was on the petitioner to demonstrate before the learned Tribunal and also before this Court that respondent No. 1 had not kept permissible front, rear and sides of the setbacks as permissible in the bye-laws for the plots having size of 8 Marlas. In absence of any material, this Court would not be in a position to take a view contrary to the one taken by the learned Tribunal on the basis of material placed before it. Other violation pointed out by the petitioner with respect to the permissible ground coverage as prescribed by the Bye-laws ex facie is not tenable for the reasons that petitioner in his petition himself admitted that respondent No. 1 has only covered the area to the extent of 70%, as such, there could be no violation of permissible ground covered to the extent of more than 10%. That being the position, as rightly observed by the learned Tribunal that violations attributed to respondent No. 1 are minor in nature and, therefore, compoundable under the provisions occupying the field. 9. The plea of respondent No. 1 that despite the fact that in his vicinity several buildings have been constructed in sheer violation of the Bye-laws, yet the Municipal Authority has not taken any action against them for obvious reasons. 9. The plea of respondent No. 1 that despite the fact that in his vicinity several buildings have been constructed in sheer violation of the Bye-laws, yet the Municipal Authority has not taken any action against them for obvious reasons. It is claimed by respondent No. 1 that he was chosen by the Municipal Authority for differential treatment for ulterior consideration despite the fact that respondent No. 1 had not committed any serious violation in dealing demolition of the whole structure as directed by the concerned Khilafwarzi Officer. The plea of respondent No. l that since violations of construction in the vicinity has not been taken note of by the Municipal Authority and therefore, he should have also not proceeded against the violations of Bye-laws, is tenable in law, but, at the same that this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that there is a rampant rise in illegal and unauthorized constructions in and around Jammu City and the same can never be without the knowledge and connivance of officials/officers of petitioner-Authority. Respondent No. 1 may not be the lone person who, as alleged, has raised unauthorized construction in the area, but the others may have been left free by the concerned Khilafwarzi Officer for obvious reasons. This pick and chose policy needs to be curbed strictly. Whether these officials/officers of petitioner-Authority are raising their own residential houses and other structures as per the approved plan or not is also a matter of concern that needs to be gone into. Illegal and unauthorized constructions of buildings and other structures not only violate the Municipal Bye-laws and the concept of planned development of particular area, but, also affect various fundamental and constitutional rights of other persons. Therefore, besides taking action against the persons raising unauthorized construction, the concerned officials/officers of the petitioner-Authority, who connive to allow these illegal and unauthorized constructions to come up, are also required to be dealt with by iron hands. 10. The Apex Court in Dipak Kumar Mukherjee vs. Kolkata Municipal Corporation, (2013) 5 SCC 336 : AIR 2013 SC 927 , while dealing on the same subject, has observed as under : "8. 10. The Apex Court in Dipak Kumar Mukherjee vs. Kolkata Municipal Corporation, (2013) 5 SCC 336 : AIR 2013 SC 927 , while dealing on the same subject, has observed as under : "8. What needs to be emphasised is that illegal and unauthorized constructions of buildings and other structure not only violate the municipal laws and the concept of planned development of the particular area but also affect various fundamental and constitutional rights of other persons. The common man feels cheated when he finds that those making illegal and unauthorized constructions are supported by the people entrusted with the duty of preparing and executing master plan/development plan/zonal plan. The reports of demolition of hutments and jhuggi jhopris belonging to poor and disadvantaged section of the society frequently appear in the print media but one seldom gets to read about demolition of illegally/unauthorisedly constructed multi-storied structure raised by economically affluent people. The failure of the State apparatus to take prompt action to demolish such illegal constructions has convinced the citizens that planning laws are enforced only against poor and all compromises are made by the State machinery when it is required to deal with those who have money power or unholy nexus with the power corridors." 11. In the present case, it appears that there is a vacant plot as claimed by respondent No. 1. over which he maintained setbacks to some extent keeping in view the dimension of the plot. Learned Tribunal has found that respondent No. 1 had committed violations, though minor in nature and has, thus, compounded the same. So, the order passed by the learned Tribunal is well founded and needs no interference. 12. Viewed thus, this writ petition being without any merit is dismissed along with connected MPs. 13. Before parting with, the Authority at the helm of affairs though still aware of these violations of laws by both, persons raising construction and/or officers/officials of Municipal Authority, responsible to check violations, are reminded of their duties in this regard and it is expected that appropriate remedial measures should be taken to check the violations of Bye-laws in construction immediately, when these are committed and not to wait for construction to come up finally. At the same time, erring officers/officials, who are found in league with lawbreakers, should also be dealt with sternly and appropriate disciplinary proceedings should be initiated against them.