ORDER K.C. Gupta, J. - Hazara Singh and Gujjan Singh have filed this writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned orders, Annexure P-1 dated 31.7.1979 passed by the Sales Commissioner, Kapurthala, Annexure P-2 dated 27.1.981 passed by the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chief Sales Commissioner and Annexure P-3 dad 25.5.1983 passed by Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar. 2. Briefly stated, the facts necessary for the decision of the writ petition are that petitioner No. 1, Hazara Singh, was allotted surplus rural evacuee agricultural land measuring 78 kanals 16 marlas situated in village Allaudinpur through auction on 20.11.1975 by Tehsildar (Sales), Kapurthala. He was the highest bidder for a sum of Rs. 34,000/-. However, subsequently, name of Gajjan Singh, petitioner No. 2, was also inserted by Tehsildar (Sales) on 2.4.1976 on the application of petitioner No. 1 and the conveyance deed was ordered to be issued in the name of both the petitioners jointly. The petitioners did not deposit the requisite instalments. Respondent No. 3, the Sales Commissioner, Kapurthala, vide order dated 31.7.1979, Annexure P-1, cancelled the sale without hearing the petitioners. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners preferred an appeal before respondent No. 1, Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chief Sales Commissioner, Kapurthala, which was dismissed vide order dated 27.1.1981, Annexure P-2. They still further preferred revision against the said order dated 27.1.1981 to the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, which was also dismissed vide order dated 25.5.1983, Annexure P-3. 3. The main grievance of the petitioners is that they were not heard by respondent No. 3 before passing the order of cancellation of allotment and further Sales Commissioner was not competent to pass the order of cancellation of sale as only Tehsildar (Sales) or Naib Tehsildar (Sales) was competent to cancel the same. 4. The respondent did not appear despite service. Hence, this writ petition was admitted by the Division bench vide order dated 20.9.1983. 5. I have heard Sh. B.S. Wasu, counsel for the petitioners, Sh. H.S. Sran, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondents and carefully gone through the file. 6. Rule 6(6)(xiii) of the Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Rules, 1976, which have been framed by the Governor of Punjab in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 18 of the Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Act, 1976, reads as under :- "(xiii). H.S. Sran, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondents and carefully gone through the file. 6. Rule 6(6)(xiii) of the Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Rules, 1976, which have been framed by the Governor of Punjab in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 18 of the Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Act, 1976, reads as under :- "(xiii). If the auction purchaser does not deposit the balance of the purchase money within the period specified in clause (xii) or defaults in the payment of two successive instalments within the stipulated period, the Tehsildar (Sales) and Naib Tehsildar (Sales) shall be competent to cancel the sale, forfeit the amount already paid and resume the land, after giving due notice to the defaulting person." Therefore, according to this clause, the sale could only be cancelled if there is default in payment of two successive instalments within the stipulated period and further prior notice to the defaulting person has been given. Admittedly, in the present case, the petitioners were not heard before cancellation of the sale. The order Annexure P-1 dated 31.7.1979 passed by the Sales Commissioner, Kapurthala (S.D.M.) reads as under :- "The sale is cancelled. In future the files of sale should be marked to me as Sales Commissioner and not as S.D.M. Sd/- S.C. 31.7.1979" 7. Therefore, there is no mention in it that the petitioners had been given notice and they had been heard before cancelling the sale in their favour. Moreover, according to this clause, the order of cancellation has to be passed by the Tehsildar (Sales) and Naib Tehsildar (Sales) and not by the Sales Commissioner. Hence, the order passed for cancellation of the allotment is illegal. The learned Deputy Advocate General for the State of Punjab submitted that opportunity of hearing having been given to the petitioners at the appellate and revisional stages was enough to held that due opportunity was given. In my opinion the contention of learned Deputy Advocate General cannot be accepted. Opportunity of hearing was to be given to the petitioners before cancellation of the allotment and not afterwards. Moreover, the opportunity of being heard at the appellate and revisional stages does not fill the gap elapsed in the case. This has been so observed by the High Court in Shrimati Pari and another v. State of Punjab and others, 1966 PLR 844. 8. There is another aspect of the matter. Moreover, the opportunity of being heard at the appellate and revisional stages does not fill the gap elapsed in the case. This has been so observed by the High Court in Shrimati Pari and another v. State of Punjab and others, 1966 PLR 844. 8. There is another aspect of the matter. Vide notification dated 20.1.1979, the Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Rules, 1976, have been amended. According to said notification Rule 6(6)(xiii), after amendment, reads as under :- "If the auction purchaser does not deposit the balance of the purchased money within the period specified in Clause (xii) or defaults in payment of two successive instalments within the stipulated period, the Tehsildar (Sales) or Naib Tehsildar (Sales) shall recover the amount of defaulted instalments as arrears of land revenue." Therefore, after 20.1.1976, even the Naib Tehsildar (Sales) or Tehsildar (Sales) was not competent to cancel the sale or forfeit the amount already paid and resume the land after giving due notice to the defaulting person. If the auction purchaser does not deposit the balance of the purchase money within the period specified or defaults in the payment of two successive instalments within the stipulated period, the Naib Tehsildar (Sales) was competent to recover the amount of defaulted instalments as arrears of land revenue. In the present case, the Sales Commissioner, Kapurthala, had cancelled the sale on 31.7.1979, when amended rules had come into force on 20.1.1979. Hence, the order passed by the Sales Commissioner, Kapurthala, Annexure P-1 dated 31.7.1979, further order passed by respondent No. 2, Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chief Sales Commissioner, Kapurthala, Annexure P-2 dated 27.1.1981 and also order passed in revision by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, exercising the powers of the State Government on 25.5.1983, Annexure P-3, are illegal as the same are in violation of Rule 6(6)(xiii) of the Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Rules, 1976, as amended by notification dated 20.1.1979. 9. Consequently, the writ petition is accepted and the aforesaid orders are quashed. The petitioners are directed to deposit the remaining balance amount within four months from the date of order. Petition allowed.