The main legal point established in the judgment is that minor construction violations, as per the prescribed regulations, are compoundable, and authorities have a duty to take prompt action against illegal constructions.

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. 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 t