JUDGMENT

Vikram Aggarwal, J.

Challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated 16.01.2019 (Annexure P-9) passed by respondent No.1 dismissing the revision petition filed by the petitioners under Section 15(3) of the Punjab New Mandi Townships (Development & Regulation) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), order dated 22.07.2016 (Annexure P-7) passed by respondent No.2 dismissing the appeal and order dated 15.09.1998 (Annexure P-4) passed by respondent No.3, vide which S.C.F. Plot No.6, situated in New Grain Market, Panni Wala Fatta (hereinafter referred to as 'the plot in dispute') was resumed and 10% of the consideration money was forfeited. The petitioners seek a direction to the respondents to restore the allotment of the plot in dispute after receipt of the entire sale consideration alongwith interest and thereafter to execute the sale deed/conveyance deed in favour of the petitioners.

2. The petitioners, who are real brothers were jointly allotted the plot in dispute in an open auction held on 09.02.1979 for a sum of Rs. 16,000/-. Rs.4,000/- had been initially deposited as earnest money. The balance sale consideration was to be deposited in installments. Allotment letter dated 25.06.1979 was issued (Annexure P-1) (colly). After paying the first installment of Rs.2,000/- alongwith interest, the petitioners did not pay the remaining amount under the impression (as averred) that the same had to be paid as and when demanded by the respondents. The petitioners claimed that the basic amenities were also not provided, as a result of which also, the balance installments could not be paid. Ultimately, the plot was resumed vide order dated 15.09.1998 (Annexure P-4) under Section 13(4) of the Act, 1960. 10% of the bid money was also forfeited.

3. The petitioners claimed that the order of resumption was not served upon them as a result of which they could not file an appeal within the prescribed period of limitation. In December 2014, when respondent No.3 issued a public notice of auction which included the plot in dispute, the petitioners came to know about the order of resumption. An appeal was immediately preferred on 15.12.2014. An application for condonation of delay was also filed. However, the appeal was dismissed vide order dated 22.07.2016 (Annexure P-7). A revision petition was also preferred which was also dismissed vide order dated 16.01.2019 (Annexure P-9).

4. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners had always been willing to pay the balance sale consideration and the same was not paid because no demand was raised by the respondents. It has also been claimed that on account of non-providing of basic amenities, the balance sale consideration could not be paid.

5. It is the further case of the petitioners that the impugned orders are discriminatory as in similarly situated circumstances, the plots of certain other persons had been restored. Reliance has been placed upon certain orders dated 27.08.2013 (Annexure P-11) (colly).

6. The writ petition has been opposed by the respondents. The basic stand taken in the written statement is the non-payment of balance sale consideration and delay. It has been averred that after the allotment in 1979, the details of installments were intimated to the petitioners vide letter dated 10.09.1979 and the entire amount had to be deposited upto 25.06.1982 but the same had not been deposited even till the filing of the writ petition. Various letters were written but the petitioners did not deposit the amount nor did they disclose the reasons for non-payment of the same. An opportunity of hearing was also granted to the petitioners vide letter dated 08.07.1986 but still no amount was deposited and in fact they did not appe