ORDER : Ramesh Kumar Wattal, Member (Judicial) The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant on the grounds that the appellant has been harassed by the Municipal authorities at the behest of one Vinod Kumar Sharma S/o Puran Chand Sharma who has been raising construction against the sanctioned plan on the said property for which the appellant has been knocking the doors of the Hon'ble High Court of J&K and not allowing the; said construction to be raised by Vinod Kumy Sharma and is also puling up the municipal authorities for not taking action against the violators for the said construction raised against Municipal and Master plan. 2. That the piece of land on which House no. 805-A, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu has been built was originally allotted to It. Ram Ditta Sharma father of the appellant. The father of the appellant had two sons namely Surinder Kumar Sharma and Rakesh Chander Sharma. The brother of the appellant after the death of the appellant started living in the front portion of the house and the appellant started living in the back portion in the same unit. 3. The structure of the building was very old and the brother of t he appellant sold front portion of the said house to Vinod Kumar Sharma and in fact he demolished the front portion and raised construction over it for which no action has been taken by the Municipal authorities. 4. The appellant stated that in the year 2001 a pre-existing small shop had temporary roof which had been replaced by lentil on the roof. A notice u/s 7 (1) of Control of Building Operation Act, 1988 and order was issued after which an appeal was filed by the appellant. 5. The appeal bearing file no. STJ/247 was finally decided by Bench IInd in Tribunal vide order dated 15.10.2007. The said construction was compounded by Tribunal against which no writ petition was ever preferred by the respondents. 6. That after winning in the appeal, the appellant started pursuing the writ petition against Vinod Kumar Sharma in respect of alleged construction. Another notice against the same shop u/s 7 (1) and 7 (3) of Control of Building Operation Act, 1988 was issued. 7. The appellant challenged the said notice and the said appeal was allowed vide order no. 6. That after winning in the appeal, the appellant started pursuing the writ petition against Vinod Kumar Sharma in respect of alleged construction. Another notice against the same shop u/s 7 (1) and 7 (3) of Control of Building Operation Act, 1988 was issued. 7. The appellant challenged the said notice and the said appeal was allowed vide order no. dated 26.2.2013 and order u/s 7 (3) of Control of Building Operation Act, 1988 was set aside on the basis that the same structure stands already compounded against which no action was taken by the Municipal authorities. 8. That the appellant furthermore has been harassed by issuing notice u/s 7 (1) of Control of Building Operation Act, 1988 dated 1.7.2013 to which the appellant given detailed reply and they did not consider the reply and issued order u/s 7 (3) of Control of Building Operation Act, 1988 without considering and appreciating what is written in the said reply. 9. That the appellant being aggrieved of the impugned order u/s 7 (3) of Control of Building Operation Act, 1988 therefore challenged the same on the following grounds; (i). The said notice and order impugned u/s 7 (1) of Control of Building Operation Act, 1988 and order impugned u/s 7 (3) of Control of Building Operation Act, 1988 are not maintainable as the same structure stands compounded already by this Tribunal in 2007. Furthermore notice for the same structure and order u/s 7 (1) of Control of Building Operation Act, 1988 stands quashed vide order dated 26.2.2013. (ii). That the order impugned does not mention any where about of the reply filed by the appellant and have not even discussed the order impugned and order is without any reason and deserves to be set aside. A prayer has been made by the appellant that appeal of the appellant may kindly be allowed and the impugned demolition order may kindly be set aside. On the other hand Respondents submitted that the appellant had constructed two rooms, lobby, kitchen and bath room on the grounds and first floor and also constructed one shop on the ground floor by encroaching part of Govt, land and also constructed one room on the second floor without obtaining the permission from JMC at 805-A Gandhi Nagar, Jammu. On the other hand Respondents submitted that the appellant had constructed two rooms, lobby, kitchen and bath room on the grounds and first floor and also constructed one shop on the ground floor by encroaching part of Govt, land and also constructed one room on the second floor without obtaining the permission from JMC at 805-A Gandhi Nagar, Jammu. The appellant has violated the provision of J&K Control of Building Operations Act 1988 and J&K Control of Building Operation Regulation 1998 prescribed by laws and master plan. Thus the respondents issued the show cause notice under section 7(1) of COBA on 1.7.2015 on the report submitted by the Enforcement Officer and discontinue the operation of unauthorised construction. That the appellant has filed the reply to the notice u/s 7(1) of COBA and the same was not based on the facts and therefore final notice u/s 7 (3) of Control of Building Operation Act, 1988 was issued on 25.7.13 and served on 26.7.13 to the appellant and was directed to demolish the unauthorised construction/violation within live days failing which the same would be demolished on his own risk and cost. That the appellant had constructed two rooms, lobby, kitchen and bath room on the grounds and first floor and also constructed one shop on the ground floor by encroaching part of Govt., land and also constructed one room on the second floor without obtaining the permission from JMC at 805-A Gandhi Nagar, Jammu. The total plot area is 1936 Sft. and the appellant covered 1451 sft. At ground floor, 1329 sft. At first floor and 550 sft. At second floor. The appellants has raised the construction of shop on the Govt. Land by encroaching 10ft. In length the Govt. Land as the length of the plot is only 65 feet but the appellant has raised the structure up to 75 feet, it is further submitted that the plot no; 805-A was allotted in favour of Sh. Ram Ditta measuring 65'X45' it is clear that length of the plot is 65 feet. The appellant has violated the provision of J&K Control of Building Operation Act, 1988. The appellant has made following violations. These are: Total plot area. 1936 Sft. Violation at ground floor 1451 Sft. Violation at first floor 1029 Sft. Violation at second floor 550 Sft. Total Violation 3030 Sft. The appellant has violated the provision of J&K Control of Building Operation Act, 1988. The appellant has made following violations. These are: Total plot area. 1936 Sft. Violation at ground floor 1451 Sft. Violation at first floor 1029 Sft. Violation at second floor 550 Sft. Total Violation 3030 Sft. That the appellant has raised the construction without permission from JMC at 805-A Gandhi Nagar Jammu in contravention to the provision of J&K Control of Building Operations Act 1988 and J&K Control of Building Operations Regulations 1998 and the appeal filed by the appellant is baseless and therefore derives no consideration and required merit dismissal. I have perused on the grounds of memorandum of appeal, objections filed by the respondent Jammu municipal Corporation, the record placed by the parties on the file, the copies of the judgments and the other documents on record the documents and record of the connected case of the respondent no.3 against the respondents and the appellant herein and have also heard the Learned Counsel for the parties at length. The facts of the case admitted by the parties are that, the appellant Surinder Kumar Sharma and Rakesh Chander Sharma are brothers and the respondent No.3 has purchased house and underneath a appurtenant measuring 28 feet X 53.06 feet from appellants brother Rakesh Chander Sharma as per the registered sale deed dated 17-9-2010. The respondent no. 3 in order to raise the construction on his purchased portion sought permission from the respondent which was accorded in his favour who started the construction of the house and as per the objections filed by the respondent municipal Corporation the respondent No. 3 was alleged to have violated the ground floor, first floor and the second floor by committing violation of 627 square foot. The respondent no.3 submitted before the court that the respondent JMC has been moved at the instance of another brother of the vendor Rakesh Chander Sharma i.e. Surinder Kumar Sharma, the appellant herein who was not consenting to the sale of the house of his brother to the respondent no. The respondent no.3 submitted before the court that the respondent JMC has been moved at the instance of another brother of the vendor Rakesh Chander Sharma i.e. Surinder Kumar Sharma, the appellant herein who was not consenting to the sale of the house of his brother to the respondent no. 3 The copies of the judgments placed on record also show that the appellant had filed a suit for pre-emption against the appellant and had prayed for the restraint order against the intended construction of the respondent no.3 in connected case but the said application for temporary injunction was dismissed by the order of the Learned Additional district Judge Jammu vide order dated 8-10-2011. The said order was challenged by Surinder Kumar Sharma appellant herein in the appeal before Honourable High Court in which the appellant and the vendor party Rakesh Chander Sharma had been impleaded as the respondents but the Honourable High Court vide's order dated 9-11-2011 dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of learning and Additional District Judge Jammu permitting the respondent no. 3 to go with the construction. The appellant complained against the respondent no.3 and the respondents issued the notice to the respondent no.3 in connected case. It may be mentioned that the respondent no. 3 in the connected appeal was said to have committed violation of 4% which however has been ordered to be compounded. In retaliation of the appellants acts of enforcing his rights vis-a-vis the property and the complaints filed by him the respondent no. 3 also complained to JMC that the appellant has raised the construction in his portion by violating the building plan and in violation of the master plan who besides committing violations as per the chart devised by them has also encroached upon the state land by constructing khokha, a shop on it. It is submitted by the appellant that the appellant was having his old house at 805 Gandhi Nagar. The brothers after death of their father started living in the front and back portion of the house. The structure of the building was very old and the brother of the appellant sold front portion of the said house to Vinod Kumar Sharma the respondent no.3 and in fact he demolished the front portion and raised construction over it for which no action was alleged to have been taken by the Municipal authorities. The structure of the building was very old and the brother of the appellant sold front portion of the said house to Vinod Kumar Sharma the respondent no.3 and in fact he demolished the front portion and raised construction over it for which no action was alleged to have been taken by the Municipal authorities. The appellant stated that in the year 2001 a pre-existing small shop had temporary roof which had been replaced by lentil on the roof. A notice u/s 7 (3) of Control of Building Operation Act, 1988 and order was issued after which an appeal was filed by the appellant. The appeal bearing file No. STJ/247 was finally decided by Bench IInd in Tribunal vide order dated 15.10.2007. The said construction was compounded by Tribunal against which no writ petition was ever preferred by the respondents. That after winning the same, the appellant started pursuing the writ petition against Vinod Kumar Sharma respondent no. 3 in respect of alleged construction. Another notice against the same shop u/s 7 (1) and 7 (3) of Control of Building Operation Act, 1988 was issued. The appellant challenged the said notice and the said appeal was allowed vide order no. dated 26.2.2013 and order u/s 7 (3) of Control of Building Operation Act, 1988 was set aside on the basis that the same structure stands already compounded against which no action was taken by the Municipal authorities. Perusal of the record of the case also shows that as regards the shop the same stands already compounded by. the order of this tribunal dated 15-10-2007 as urged in this appeal wherein it is mentioned that the Housing Board has not claimed the area underneath the shop. It may be mentioned here that the structure has been compounded if the area underneath at all belongs to the state at the time of road widening or restoration of possession the same can be taken back in the event of any requirement by them. But neither JMC nor Board ever challenged the compounding order of construction before any forum. Respondent no. 3 has contended that the land belongs to the state and appellant who has been filing writ after writ against him and has wasted his money and precious time in litigation has himself encroached the state land and demolition order should be passed against him. Respondent no. 3 has contended that the land belongs to the state and appellant who has been filing writ after writ against him and has wasted his money and precious time in litigation has himself encroached the state land and demolition order should be passed against him. The Tribunal having been contended to have already ordered the compounding of violations of shop, it is beyond the scope of this appeal to review that order after a decade now particularly when neither state nor JMC nor Board has challenged the same since the same was compounded. But as regards other violations, since the construction was old and after renovation there was no scope of set backs as the construction having been raised at the old site. The violations are therefore not effecting the master plan or zoning Regulations in any manner and the same being minor are therefore also ordered to be compounded at the same rate of Rs. 50 per square ft. at which the respondents construction in the appeal filed by him was compounded. The compounding fees therefore will be equal to the amount of 3030x50 = Rs. 151500. Thus an amount of Rs. 151500 be deposited by the appellant in the A/c head of the respondent within period of two months. Records be returned to the concerned quarter along with copy of this order. File shall be consigned to records after due completion.