JUDGMENT

 Leave granted.

Since a common point both of fact and law is involved in these appeals, they are all disposed of by this common order.

2. Unfortunately, there is no appearance on behalf of the respondents. We have, therefore, gone through the record of the case with the assistance of the learned counsel for the appellants. The undisputed facts which emerge are as follows :

In all these cases, the appellant-landlords had got their building plans sanctioned in 1970-71 according to R. 25 of the Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Building Rules, 1952 (Rules), as it stood then. The height of the building was not to exceed 57.7 feet. The plans sanctioned were for buildings with a ground and three floors and a mezzanine floor above the ground floor which was to cover only a part of the total floor space available. It appears that during the construction of the buildings in question, R. 25 of the Rules was amended on 21st December, 1970 permitting the height of the floor to be reduced at 9 feet. Taking advantage of this amendment, the appellants extended the floor area of the mezzanine floor to the entire floor space available, thus converting the mezzanine floor into another regular floor. However, for such conversion of the mezzanine floor, they did not resubmit their plan and get the sanction from the authorities.

3. The construction of the buildings was thus made in contravention of the sanctioned plan. Notices were issued to all the appellants by the Estate Officer under S. 9 of the Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952. The Estate Officer in all these cases, ordered resumption of the site and also forfeiture of the amount of price paid for the same. Against the said decision, the appellants approached the appellate authority, namely, the Chief Administrator, who in lieu of the forfeiture and resumption, levied a penalty as and by way of compensation, for the breach. Against the appellate order, the appellants approached the revisional authority, namely, the Chief Commissioner who, taking into consideration the circumstances in which the breach was made, reduced the amount of compensation by various sums in each case. Still, aggrieved by this decision, the present appeals have been filed.

4. On the facts as narrated above, we are of the view that the breach was of a technical nature. It is not disputed that while the buildings were under construction, R. 25 of the Rules was amended permitting the floor height to be reduced to 9 feet. There is further no dispute that the appellants have not exceeded the maximum height of the building. Taking advantage of the amended R. 25, they had only extended the area of the mezzanine floor to match the area of the other floors. In others words, the mezzanine floor was converted into yet another floor. The default on the part of the appellants was that the conversion was not made by resubmitting the plans and getting it sanctioned. It is not suggested that as the rules stood then, the authorities could have withheld the sanction for such conversion. This is also acknowledged by the revisional authority. However, he has rightly pointed out that the appellants without changing their plan should not have ventured the extension of the mezzanine floor. To that extent, he is undoubtedly right. However, we find that the breach being technical, the amount of compensation which is directed to be paid by the appellants is on a high side and they do deserve some relief in that behalf. We find that the compensation charged by the revisional authority comes approximately to Rs. 45 per sq. ft. of the excess area of the mezzanine floor. In each case. We feel that in the circumstances of the case, Rs. 20/- per sq. ft. of the excess area will be an adequate compensation to meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, we reduce the compensation to Rs. 20/- per sq. ft. of the excess area of the mezzanine floor.

5. From the table which has been prepared and handed over to us in each cas