G.S. Singhvi, J. - This petition has been filed to quash the order of resumption passed by the Assistant Estate Officer, Chandigarh under Rule 12(3) of the Chandigarh Lease Hold of Sites and Building Rules, 1973 (hereafter referred to as the Rules). The orders passed by the Chief Administrator and the Advisor to the Administrator, Chandigarh dismissing the appeal and the revision filed by the petitioners, as also the order passed by the Estate Officer under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 and the judgment dated 24.4.1996 passed by the District Judge, Chandigarh dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioners have also been challenged by the petitioners.

2. In order to decide whether the impugned orders suffer from any jurisdictional illegality or any other error of law, a brief reference to some of the facts is necessary.

3. The petitioners gave highest bid of Rs. 20,65,000/- for purchase of commercial site No. 477-78, Sector 35-C, Chandigarh in the open auction held on 13.3.1988. Their bid was accepted by the Chandigarh Administration and on deposit of 25% of the total premium the possession of the site was handed over to the petitioners and the letter of allotment was issued by the Estate Officer on 25.4.1988 (wrongly typed as 25.4.1985 in Annexure P1). The petitioners did not pay the first instalment of Rs. 5,90,151/- which was payable upto 10.4.1989. The Assistant Estate Officer issued notice dated 26.4.1989 to the petitioners requiring them to deposit the instalment within 15 days. This was followed by a notice under Rule 12(3) of the Rules whereby the petitioners were called upon to explain as to why penalty and interest be not imposed on account of their default. Even then the petitioners did not pay the first instalment. Ultimately, the Assistant Estate Officer issued notice Annexure P2 to the petitioners to show cause why proceedings may not be taken for cancellation of the lease of the site. For similar defaults in the payment of second and third instalments, the notices Annexures P3 and P4 were issued to the petitioners and they were asked to pay the amount of instalments with ground rent and interest together with penalty specified in those notices. Last notice was issued to the petitioners on 27.11.1991. The Assistant Estate Officer afforded opportunity of hearing to the petitioners on 11.12.1991, 21.1.1992, 8.4.1992, 13.5.1992, 17.6.1992 and 12.8.1992. Despite this, the petitioners failed to clear the outstanding dues. Consequently, he passed the order Annexure P5 and cancelled the lease of the site. At the same time, the Assistant Estate Officer ordered forfeiture of 10% of the premium plus ground rent and interest. The appeal filed by the petitioners was allowed by the Chief Administrator subject to the conditions that outstanding amount along with forfeiture of 4% is paid by the petitioners by 31.3.1995. The petitioners did not feel satisfied with the order of the appellate authority and filed a revision petition before the Advisor to the Administrator, who passed the order Annexure P7 and once again restored the site in question subject to the condition that all outstanding dues along with 2% forfeiture are paid by 2.1.1996.

4. It appears that the petitioners did not comply with the conditions imposed by the appellate and the revisional authorities and, therefore, the order passed by the Assistant Estate Officer for cancellation of the lease became operative. This prompted the Estate Officer to initiate proceedings under the Act of 1971. After giving notice to the petitioners, the Estate Officer passed the order of ejectment. The petitioners appealed against the order of ejectment. Their appeal has been dismissed by the District Judge, Chandigarh on 24.4.1996.

5. The petitioners have challenged the impugned orders on the ground of violation of the provisions of the Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 and the Rules (of 1973). The petitioners co