JUDGMENT : Ramesh Kumar Wattal, Member (Judicial) The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant on the grounds that the appellant is the owner in possession of the four storey house at Mohalla Pharain, Jammu consisting of Garage on the ground floor and residential accommodation being purchased by the appellant vide sale deed dated 10th May, 2014. The garage/shop on the ground floor and first floor and the residential accommodation on the second floor was being in very bad condition having developed some crakes and about to fall at any point of time causing huge loss of life and property and in order to protect the garage/shop and residential accommodation, appellant repaired the same under bona fide belief that no permission is required for the same. 2. The respondents issued three notices Vide no. MJ/CEO/11/1/2013 dated 9.5.2013, No. MJ/CEO/11/2/2013 dated 9.5.2013, and no. MJ/CEO/11/3/2013 dated 14.5.2013 and u/s 12 (1) of J&K Control of Building Operation Act 1988 and directed to demolish the construction/violation within five days and the appellant challenged the issues of notices that notices/orders impugned are against the law and facts of the case. No new structure has been made only repair has been done. 3. The impugned notices are against the principal of natural justice as the issuance of show cause notice u/s 12 (1) of J&K Control of Building Operation Act 1988 is mere a formality when the concerned authority has made its mind to demolish the alleged repairs/renovation while declaring the same to be unauthorised without affording an opportunity to the appellant as both the notice u/s 12 (1) and U/S 7(1) of the Jammu and Kashmir Control of building Operation Act, 1988, are being issued on the same date i.e. 9.5.2013. 4. That the impugned notices have been issued without application of mind and being only to harass the appellant. 5. That no new structures has been raised and the appellant has not taken recourse to any proceedings other than resorting to the process of filling of the present appeal and availed the remedy as provided under law and prayer for setting aside the same. 6. The appeal has been resisted by the respondent on the grounds that the appellant's committed violations which comes within the purview of the major violation which is not compoundable. 7. 6. The appeal has been resisted by the respondent on the grounds that the appellant's committed violations which comes within the purview of the major violation which is not compoundable. 7. That the appellant was issued the notices under section 12(1) section -7(1) of COBA on 9.4.2013 on the report submitted by Enforcement Officer on 6.4.2013 to discontinue the operation on unauthorised construction, which was served on the appellant on 8.4.2013. 8. That the appellant failed to file the reply of the show cause notice and final notice was issued to the appellant u/s 7 (3) of COBA on 14.5.2013 and served on 15.5.2013 and was directed to demolish the unauthorised construction/violation within five days failing which the same would be demolished at his own risk and cost. 9. The total plot area is 1130 sft. and appellant has covered the entire plot without leaving set back thereby also violated the norms relating to the setback and it is a settled law that the violation of the set back is a major violation which can not be compounded. 10. That the total plot are of the appellant is 1138 Sft. The appellant covered the same are on the ground, first and 2nd floor according to the master plan the appellant can cover 70% of the plot area but the appellant in the present case covered 100 % of the plot area. 11. That the appellant has raised the construction without seeking the? permission from JMC. The appellant by making material alter nation in the existing building/shop which comes within the purview of the definition of erection and re-erection. 12. That the appellant has raised the construction without obtaining permission from JMC and therefore, done a major violation which is not compoundable. 13. The appellant has also violated the provision of J&K Control of Building Operation Act, 1988 and J&K Control of Building Operations Regulation 1998 prescribed bye laws and Master plan and Prayer has been made that the appeal be dismissed with costs. 14. I have perused the contents of memorandum of appeal, the objections filed by the Respondents and have also heard the learned Counsel for the Appellant as well as the Respondents on whose behalf Mr. Chib standing counsel caused the appearance and advanced his arguments. 15. 14. I have perused the contents of memorandum of appeal, the objections filed by the Respondents and have also heard the learned Counsel for the Appellant as well as the Respondents on whose behalf Mr. Chib standing counsel caused the appearance and advanced his arguments. 15. At the outset it may be mentioned that a PIL with respect to the area of Paharian Mohalla titled Naresh Gupta v. JMC was pending before the Honourable High court which has been disposed off with the directions to the respondents to take all necessary steps to make the provisions of the J&K Municipal Corporation Act/building laws operational latest by 30th April 2016. As such as also submitted by the counsel for the parties there is no PIL pending before the Honourable High Court which would constitute be a bar to this court to dispose' of the case on its merits. 16. So far as the case of the appellant is concerned he has averred that he had purchased the four storied house at Mohalla Paharian consisting of Garage, Ground floor and residential accommodation in 10.5.2004 and the same was in bad condition as it had developed cracks and was about fell, that is why he started renovation of the same to present loss of life and property but the respondent issued notice to the appellant under section 7 (3) asking him to demolish the building on the ground that the same was raised without permission of Jammu Municipal Corporation. 17. The respondent have on the other hand considered that the appellant case is false. The appellant has made renovation of the whole structure without permission of JMC without leaving set backs and thereby committed violation of COBA and section -5 of Municipal (Unauthorised Construction Rules 2007. 18. Besides it has been submitted that total plot area is 1130 Sft. And the appellant has brought whole area under construction in violation of norms and regulations and thereby committed violation of master and zonal plan. 19. Perusal of the material on record shows that as per sale deed dated 10th April, 2004 appellant has purchased the construction from the vendors Shiv Gupta and others which at the time of purchase was consisting of Garage on ground floor, four rooms, kitchen, toilets on first floor, four rooms kitchen toilets on second floor and open space on top floor for Rs. 9.00 lacs. 9.00 lacs. This sale deed is registered by Sub-Registrar Jammu on 10.5.2004. 20. It shows that the appellant has not raised any new construction which was already existing. 21. The respondents have initiated action on the complaint of one Naresh Gupta, copy of which is on file. In the complaint it is alleged that the appellant has raised construction in violation of the stay order of Hon'ble High Court as he has raised the commercial structure without the permission of JMC. 22. It may be mentioned that the complaint is said to be the petition who had filed PIL in the Hon'ble High Court which stands disposed off as stated above. 23. The appellant has renovated the building which was started to have develop cracks and there are likelihood that the same might fall. 24. Though the appellant is not shown to have sought any permission but merely be renovating the construction without permission. The construction cannot be said to have become illegal and unauthorised if the same does not reflect major violations of zonal or master plan. 25. The appellant could not have been refused permission in view of the constriction proved to have been old and existing and purchased by the appellant in 2004 which was sought to be renovated. 26. Though renovation also comes with definition of construction activity and municipal authorities alleges that such violations but as per noting of the Municipal officials to file no such violations are reported. 27. The plot area is 1130 Sft. And the appellant is entitled to cover 70% of area as per master plan in old city. 28. The area is shown to be only 3 and 4 marlas and the same being too scarce taking into account the location of the area there does not seem to be any scope of sparing land for set backs particularly when the structure was already existing as reflected in the sale deed and hence there is not any major violation of zonal or master plan as no change of land use is alleged in the notice issued on the respondents. 29. Thus the minor violation of construction are decided to be compounded at the rate of Rs. 50/- per sft and the amount be calculated by JMC after proper assessment which be deposited afterwards by the appellant within and relevant A/C Head of respondents within three months. 30. 29. Thus the minor violation of construction are decided to be compounded at the rate of Rs. 50/- per sft and the amount be calculated by JMC after proper assessment which be deposited afterwards by the appellant within and relevant A/C Head of respondents within three months. 30. The appeal is accordingly disposed of and file be consigned to records after due completion.