JUDGMENT : Tashi Rabstan, J. 1. Challenge in this petition is to order dated 28.04.2011 passed by Jammu and Kashmir Special Tribunal, Jammu (hereinafter "Tribunal"), whereby it directed compounding of violation of construction committed by Respondent No. 1. The case of petitioner-authority is that vide No. 344/BS/06, dated 26.08.2006 Respondent No. 1 was permitted to raise construction of residential house for Ground floor, Ist floor and Second Floor at Plot No. 102 Sector No. 6, Trikuta Nagar, Jammu. The permission was to raise construction, comprising two bed rooms, two toilets, one kitchen, one living room and staircase covering built-up area of 1150 sq. ft. over 3299 of the plot area at each floor. On 30.10.2006, Khilafwarzi Inspector of the area reported that Respondent No. 1 started construction against the approved plan. Show Cause Notice No. MJ/Estt/93/CEO/06 under Section 7(1) and Notice No. MJ/Estt/93/CEO/2/06 under Section 12(1) of the J&K Control of Building Operation Act, 1988, both dated 31.10.2006, to discontinue the construction, were served upon Respondent No. 1. He neither showed any cause nor stopped the construction. Notice No. MJ/Estt/93/CEO/3/06, dated 04.06.2007 under Section 7(3) of the J&K Control of Building Operation Act, 1988, directing Respondent No. 1 to demolish the unauthorized construction, was, as such, served upon Respondent No. 1. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that Respondent No. 1, without obtaining permission from the authority, had started construction as aforesaid, to which a Notice dated 31.10.2006 under Section 7(1) to show cause and Notice dated 31.10.2006 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 No. 1, unmindful of notices, did not stop the construction. Thereafter, Notice dated 04.06.2007 under Section 7(3) was issued for demolition of the construction so raised by respondent No. 1. Further case of the petitioner-Authority is that respondent No. 1 has raised the construction without maintaining setbacks as per the prescribed norms. 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. Further case of the petitioner-Authority is that respondent No. 1 has raised the construction without maintaining setbacks as per the prescribed norms. 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 observation of respondent No. 2 that show cause notices and final notice have not been properly framed and served, yet respondent No. 2 decided the appeal after giving full opportunity of being heard to respondent No. 1. Learned counsel also avers that learned Tribunal has compounded the offence without properly applying the provisions of law. It is also stand of petitioner that sanction of the plot was for residential purposes and accordingly building permission was granted for residential house, whereas respondent No. 1 has raised big halls at ground floor, first floor and second floor, for using it for commercial purposes. He asserts that change of land use is a major violation and cannot be compounded and that respondent No. 1 has violated the setbacks norms and committed major violations, which are mandatory as per the Building Bye Laws and any violation of it is a major violation. Thus, it is insisted that respondent No. 2 was not competent to compound the violations covering more than 10% of the permissible ground coverage as respondent No. 1 was allowed ground coverage of 35% of the plot area whereas respondent No. 1 has covered 50% of the plot area and respondent No. 2-Tribunal, without going into the merits of the case, compounded the violation, which was major. It is stated that instead of maintaining proper setbacks by respondent No. 1, he deviated from prescribed Building Bye Laws, thus, has violated provisions of J&K Control of Building Operation Act, 1988 and J&K Control of Building Operations Regulations, 1998. Accordingly, petitioner-authority issued 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 28.04.2011, impugned herein, directed compounding of violation committed by respondent No. 1. It is this order, which is under challenge in the present petition. 2. 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 28.04.2011, impugned herein, directed compounding of violation committed by respondent No. 1. It is this order, which is under challenge in the present petition. 2. 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 & 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 submitted that although the learned Tribunal has the power to regularize the violation of minor nature, i.e., upto 10%, but it cannot direct the petitioner-Authority to regularize such violation, which is more than 10% of the sanctioned limit. 3. Reply, filed by respondent No. 1, controverts the stand taken by the petitioner. It is insisted that residential building has been constructed after proper approval of site plan by the competent authority and that no show cause notices were ever issued to respondent No. 1 and the demolishing notice dated 04.06.2007 was issued without hearing respondent No. 1. Moreso, notices did not specify the nature and extent of violations. It is maintained that Learned Tribunal after hearing the parties and examining the material passed order dated 28.04.2011 and observed that notices dated 31.10.2006 are not duly served and the demolishing order was passed in violation of principle of natural justice. Learned Tribunal also held that violations were minor in nature and hence compounded by imposing fee of Rs. 1,31,600/-. Learned Tribunal, after considering the reports and submissions of the JMC, reached to the conclusion that constructed area at the ground as well as at first floor measuring 658 sq. ft., total measuring 1316 exceeded the approved plan and concluded that violation is of minor nature and directed compounding after charging fee at the rate of Rs. 100/- per sq. ft. Learned counsel has further stated that compounding fee of Rs. 1,31,600/- was deposited with JMC on 20.05.2011, i.e., much before filing of the present writ petition. Violations, thus, are of minor in nature and could be safely compounded and Respondent No. 2 has rightly compounded the same. 100/- per sq. ft. Learned counsel has further stated that compounding fee of Rs. 1,31,600/- was deposited with JMC on 20.05.2011, i.e., much before filing of the present writ petition. 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. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the file. 5. 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 include any erection or re-erection of the building which has taken place in violation of permission 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; and (iv) does not violate the permissible height of the building as prescribed in the bye-laws." 6. 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. 7. It appears that Respondent No. 1 has kept front setback as per approved plan. He has also maintained rear setback to some extent whereas one side of the building is pacca nallah and so no setback was required towards nallah side. 7. It appears that Respondent No. 1 has kept front setback as per approved plan. He has also maintained rear setback to some extent whereas one side of the building is pacca nallah and so no setback was required towards nallah side. 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, rear 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. 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. 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. 8. 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. 8. 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. 1 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 time 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, but the others may have been left free by the concerned Khilafwarzi Officer for obvious reasons. This pick and choose 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. 9. In the present case, it appears that Respondent No. 1 has kept the front setbacks as per the approved plan and has also maintained rear setbacks to some extent, whereas one side of the building is pacca nallah and no setback was required towards nallah side. Only violation was that coverage plot area was greater than permissible ground coverage and the land use as halls constructed were contended to be used for commercial purpose. Only violation was that coverage plot area was greater than permissible ground coverage and the land use as halls constructed were contended to be used for commercial purpose. 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. 10. Viewed thus, this writ petition being without any merit is dismissed along with connected MP(s). Before parting with, the Authority at the helm of affairs though still aware of these violations of law(s) 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. Let a copy of this order be conveyed to Joint Commissioner, Jammu Municipal Corporation, Jammu.