JUDGMENT : KOSSAR AHMAD QURESHI, J. (MEMBER) 1. This appeal is directed against the order bearing No. SMC/Enf/1173-79 issued by Respondent No. 3 i.e. Chief enforcement Officer, SMC, whereby the appellant has been directed to demolish/pull down the second floor raised up to lentil level by converting the attic into floor in flagrant violation of sanctioned plan. The details of the deviation with rough site plan are shown overleaf of the impugned notice. The circumstances giving rise to the present appeal are briefly given as under:- That the appellant is the owner in possession of a residential structure situated at Sheshgari Mohalla, Khanyar Srinagar having been reconstructed after obtaining a proper permission from the municipal authorities in complete adherence to the permission granted by the municipal authorities, but some slight deviation took place in the construction of attic portion of the said house that too while changing the design of attic portion in view of technical advice rendered by the engineers and in view of the technical difficulties on spot. That actually the appellant was owner in possession of three storeyed old residential house situated at Sheshgari Mohalla, Khanyar Srinagar which was badly damaged due to the devastating floods of September 2014 and consequently the said house was declared unsafe. Accordingly, the appellant applied to the respondents for reconstruction/restoration of his said flood damaged residential house and the respondents have granted the building permission to the appellant for reconstruction/restoration of two storied residential house with attic vide order No. 929 of 2016, dated 24.02.2016. That since the appellant had three storied residential house oh spot so in terms of the government order No. 265-HUD of 2014 the respondents were bound to issue permission for reconstruction of original structure i.e. three storied residential house and after approaching the respondents about the permission for two storey's and attic, the respondents assured the appellants as and when reconstruction of the said residential house would reach to the attic portion, at that time the permission for reconstruction for third storey would be granted to the appellant. The appellant believing on the assurance of the SMC authorities dismantled his three storeyed flood damaged residential house and started reconstruction of his said residential house on the same plinth area on which his aforesaid residential house was existing and after completing the two storey's and attic floor of his house, the appellant on 11.09.2016 applied to the respondents for permission of reconstruction/restoration of third storey of his flood damaged residential house and submitted the revised site plan for the same also but till date the respondents have not considered the same. That the appellant has completed the reconstruction of his residential house up to the level of attic floor in accordance with the permission granted by the competent authority and has not constructed the third storey of his residential house but is waiting for the permission of the same. In the meanwhile the respondents have issued a demolition notice under section 253(1) of the SMC Act 2000 vide No. SMC/Enf/1173-79, dated 19.1.2017 by virtue of which the appellant has been directed to demolish/pull down the said structure. The appellant is aggrieved of the said demolition notice and challenges the same on the following grounds:- i. That the impugned notice is bad in law and has been issued in slip shod manner, without application of mind and without going through the facts and circumstances of the case by the respondent No. 3 and is liable to be set aside; ii. That the notice of demolition is vague and full of ambiguity as the same is not spelling out any illegality committed by the appellant and as such on this count alone deserves to be set aside; iii. That the impugned notice has been issued by the respondent No. 3 who is not competent to pass such order under SMC Act. As such the impugned notice is without jurisdiction and is liable to be set aside; iv. That there is no blatant violation of the building laws and regulations made therefore, as the deviation committed by the appellant is of a minor and compoundable nature. On this count also, the demolition notice needs to be set aside; v. That the impugned notice is bad in law in view of the fact that there is no question of violation/contravention on the ground on which the notice of demolition is based, as such, deserves to be set aside; vi. On this count also, the demolition notice needs to be set aside; v. That the impugned notice is bad in law in view of the fact that there is no question of violation/contravention on the ground on which the notice of demolition is based, as such, deserves to be set aside; vi. That the appellant has not contravened the building laws and regulations made thereof and further the said slight deviation is not contrary to any land use and also does not effect the planned development of Srinagar City neither violates the zoning regulations/provisions of Srinagar Master Plan in vogue. On this count also, the impugned notice is liable to be quashed; The standing counsel for the respondents while arguing the case in routine and submitted that the appellant has raised the construction of second floor up to lentil level by converting the attic into a floor in violation of the sanctioned plan and in complete contravention of the terms and conditions of the building permission. Further submitted that the appellant has deviated the sanctioned plan and has raised construction in complete violation of the municipal byelaws and rules and has completely brushed aside the permission granted in his favour and needs to be demolished as the appellant willfully committed major deviations and changed the setbacks at his whims and wishes, this tribunal has no power to compound the major deviations. Further submitted that the illegal and unauthorized construction raised by the appellant in addition to the permission is deliberate, intentional and in violation of the master plan and other building laws. 2. I have perused the pleadings of the parties and have gone through the record on file and have also heard the learned counsel for the parties. 3. Perusal of the material on record shows that the appellant has been accused of raising the construction of 2nd floor upto lentil level by converting the attic into floor in flagrant violation of the sanctioned plan, while as the appellant's case is that he has raised the said construction of his residential house in complete adherence to the permission granted by the SMC authorities. 4. Now the question arises whether the construction raised by the appellant is violating any zoning regulations etc or not, in order to find whether the violation is minor, so the same as such is compoundable in nature. 4. Now the question arises whether the construction raised by the appellant is violating any zoning regulations etc or not, in order to find whether the violation is minor, so the same as such is compoundable in nature. It is admitted fact that here is no encroachment of the neighbour's adjacent land, nor is any other kind of nuisance attributed to the appellant, as such the deviation is minor in nature and is compoundable. 5. Having regard to the fact that the appellant has now completed the construction, it would be most unfair and harsh if respondents are allowed to pull down the structure and keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances of the case as discussed above, this Tribunal is of the opinion that the deviation being a minor in nature should be compounded on payment of compounding fee as the same will be in the interests of justice which thing has also been admitted by the Ward Officer concerned in his report sought by the Divisional Town Planner (R) SMC after receiving the complaint against the appellant. The Ward Officer concerned also mentioned in his report that the appellant is constructing his residential house in accordance with permission issued vide No. 929 of 2016, dated 24.12.2016 by competent authority. However, there is minor deviation from opposite side of complainant's house i.e. west side. 6. Being an apex appellate authority, the Tribunal has ample powers to compound the offences of a nature as involved in the instant case and further Tribunal cannot act as a mute spectator to the high-handedness of the respondents. Therefore, the appellant shall pay a compounding fee of Rs. 50/- per sqft. and the total area of third storey is 299 sqft. by converting the attic into floor is hereby regularized by way of compounding and the total compounding fee comes to Rs. 14950/- (Rupees Fourteen Thousand Nine Hundred and Fifty Only) and shall deposit the same in the Addl. Treasury under Major Head 8448-Deposit of Local Fund dealing with the Municipal Chest by way of treasury challan, within a period of one month from today, failing which the appeal filed by the appellant shall be deemed to have been dismissed and in that eventuality, the respondents will be at liberty to remove the violation as per impugned notice dated 19.01.2017. The Treasury Officer Addl. The Treasury Officer Addl. Treasury Tankipora is directed to receive the compounding fee from the appellant and copies of the receipt should be forwarded to the Tribunal as well as to the respondent No. 1. After deposit of compounding fees, construction shall be deemed to be regularized. In case fees is not deposited as per this, than respondent may proceed under law against appellant. Record along with copy of order be sent back. The file of this court be consigned to record after its due completion. The application for impleadment as party respondent be also dismissed and made part of the main file.