JUDGMENT M.L. Singhal, J. - Vide advertisement Ex. P-1 which appeared in the issue of Tribune dated January 2, 1983 commercial site Nos. 87 & 88 measuring 33.3" x 66.00" situated in Sector 59 Phase-V SAS Nagar, Mohali for atta chakki was advertised to be put to sale through open auction on free hold basis to be held at 11.00 AM on 9.1.1983 in front of the office of the Director, Housing and Urban Development Department, Punjab SCO No. 2453-54, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh. It was shown as 1 site as distinguished from 2 sites for atta chakki in columns No. 4 and 5 of the advertisement under the heads "category and total No. of sites" respectively. Plaintiffs-Nirmal Singh, Smt. Balwant Kaur and Parvinder Singh had been running atta chakki for the last so many years. They gave bid for the site of atta chakki. Site of atta chakki was put to auction. Auction took place on 9.1.1983. They were the highest bidders. Their bid was for Rs. 4,57,500/-. They deposited Rs. 1,14,400/- as 25% of the auction money at the spot with the Estate Officer who held the auction. They were bidders for plot Nos. 87 & 88 corner for atta chakki which constituted one site. Plots No. 87 and 88 corner were shown as one site measuring 16.6" x 66.00" and 16.9" x 66.00". Prior to 9.1.1983 i.e. when notification for issuing publication for auction was issued, a joint meeting comprising the Chief Town Planner, the Deputy Town Planner. The Chief Architect, the Director and the other concerned Officers was held which was presided over by the Secretary to Government Punjab, Housing and Urban Development Department at which the area, site, actual measurements, the sector/phase were decided and without the approval of the same signatories no amendment or change in the area of the site could be effected. Plaintiffs gave bid assuming that SCF/Plot Nos. 87 & 88 was one site for atta chakki, as atta chakki cannot be installed in an area measuring less than 33x 66, while signing the bid sheet they did not care to see that in the bid sheet, bid was shown relating to plot No. 88 only and it did not relate to plot Nos. 87 and 88 as indicated in the advertisement. Bid sheet signed by them considering that atta chakki site comprising plot Nos. 87 and 88 as indicated in the advertisement. Bid sheet signed by them considering that atta chakki site comprising plot Nos. 87 and 88 had been auctioned to them as one site. After sometime, they received allotment letter of atta chakki site in which only plot No. 88 was mentioned and not plot No. 87. They contacted Estate Officer, Urban Estates, SAS Nagar, Mohali. They were assured that after due enquiry, they would issue revised allotment letter in which plot No. 87 would also be mentioned. They were also told that they should accept the possession of plot No. 88 at the moment so that allotment was not cancelled and also they could start their business. In the meantime, Estate Officer, Urban Estate, SAS Nagar, Mohali started preparing to hold auction for SCF No. 87 declaring it as for "general trade". Plot or site once reserved for a particular purpose namely installation of atta chakki and put for auction for that purpose could not be withdrawn particularly when atta chakki could not be installed on an area less than 33x 66". As they did not want to enter into any controversy with the defendants, they told the Estate Officer, Urban Estate, SAS Nagar, Mohali that Plot No. 87 be also allotted to them at Govt. reserved price which was about Rs. 58,000/- at that time. They raised some temporary structure over the site of SCF No. 88 and installed a part of atta chakki. They submitted a sum of Rs. 50,000/- on 4.4.1986 towards part payment of the remaining instalments which was returned. To their surprise, even plot No. 88 was resumed vide order dated 2.4.1986 on the ground of non-payment of instalments which had fallen due and were likely to fall due on 9.1.1986 and 9.1.1987. They preferred appeal against the order dated 2.4.1986 to the Chief Administrator, Urban Estates, Punjab, who set aside the order of resumption of plot SCF No. 88-C, Phase-V, Mohali vide order dated 4.6.1996 and ordered that they will deposit the amount with simple interest at the rate of 7% per annum and penal interest at the rate of 10% in lumpsum within 20 days. They filed revision to Government Punjab, Housing and Urban Development fault with the order of resumption but allowed them to make the payment of over due instalments together with interest including penal interest thereon as per order of the Chief Administrator within 30 days of the date of communication of this order. The amount of over-due instalments and interest upto 10.9.1992 was worked out by the Estate Officer to the tune of Rs. 7,66,171/-. If they fall to deposit this amount within the aforesaid period of 30 days, the impugned order of resumption was to become operative. He further ordered that though they (plaintiffs) had no legal claim to the site of SCF No. 87, he gave them option to purchase site of SCF No. 87 Phase-V, Mohali if it is available, but at the price of SCF No. 88 with interest at the rate of 15% per annum with effect from the date of auction of site No. 88 till the date of payment. Alternatively, they shall be at liberty to surrender the site of SCF No. 88, Phase-V and get the refund of their money. They were allowed to communicate their option within 30 days of the date of communication of the order dated 10.9.1992. If they opt to purchase the site of SCF No. 87, Estate Officer, Mohali shall communicate the amount payable within 15 days of the receipt of the option so communicated within 30 days of the date of receipt of intimation from the Estate Officer. In case they fail either to exercise their option or to deposit the amount payable in respect of SCF No. 88 or SCF No. 87 within the period specified above, this option shall stand withdrawn. Plaintiffs filed suit for declaration whereby they have challenged the order dated 2.4.1986 of the Estate Officer, Urban Estate, Punjab, SAS Nagar, Mohali, order dated 4.6.1990 of the Chief Administrator, Urban Estate Punjab, SAS Nagar, Mohali and the order dated 10.9.1992 of the Secretary to Govt. Plaintiffs filed suit for declaration whereby they have challenged the order dated 2.4.1986 of the Estate Officer, Urban Estate, Punjab, SAS Nagar, Mohali, order dated 4.6.1990 of the Chief Administrator, Urban Estate Punjab, SAS Nagar, Mohali and the order dated 10.9.1992 of the Secretary to Govt. Punjab Housing and Urban Development Department vide which SCF No. 88, Phase-V was resumed as being illegal, unjust, without jurisdiction, against the statutes and the principles of natural justice and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from resuming plot No. 88 ibid and for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to allot plot SCF No. 87, Phase-V, SAS Nagar, Mohali to the without any price or at any other price as deemed fit by the Court and not to put plot No. 87 to auction. 2. Defendants contested the suit of the plaintiffs urging that only plot No. 88 was given to the plaintiffs in open auction. Plaintiffs do not have any right whatever so far as plot No. 87 is concerned. They gave bid for plot No. 88. Under no circumstances, they could lay claim to plot No. 87. In the allotment letter issued to the plaintiffs on 31.1.1983, area of the plot which was allotted to them was duly mentioned. It was only plot No. 88-C, Phase-V, which was put to auction. Plot No. 88-C Phase-V was given to them in auction as they were the highest bidders. Atta chakki was working in plot No. 88 and plot No. 87 was lying vacant. It was denied that atta chakki could not be installed in an area less than 33x 66. Resumption of plot SCF No. 88 took place because the plaintiffs did not deposit any instalment as mentioned in the allotment letter for the last 9 years. At the terms and conditions as mentioned in the allotment letter were not complied with, there was no other alternative except to resume the plot which was resumed on 2.4.1986. Appeal was allowed by the Chief Administrator, who allowed the plaintiffs to deposit the amount due with simple interest at the rate of 7% per annum and penal interest at the rate of 10% per annum in lumpsum and in case they tailed to do so, the order of resumption shall stand. In revision, they were ordered to pay Rs. 7,66,171/- qua the instalments which had become overdue in respect of plot/SCF No. 88. In revision, they were ordered to pay Rs. 7,66,171/- qua the instalments which had become overdue in respect of plot/SCF No. 88. In respect of plot/SCF No. 87, they were given option to purchase it if it is available at the price of SCF No. 88 with interest at the rate of 15% per annum with effect from the date of auction of site of plot SCF No. 88 till the date of payment. Alternatively they were also allowed option to surrender the site of SCF No. 88-C and obtain refund of their money. 3. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed : 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to declaration prayed for ? OPP. 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the injunction prayed for ? OPP. 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form ? OPD. 4. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred under section 20 of the Punjab Urban Estate (Development and Regulation) Act, 1964 ? OPD 5. Relief. 4. Additional Senior Sub Judge, Kharar vide order dated 5.9.1994 dismissed the plaintiffs suit in view of his findings that plaintiffs were defaulters inasmuch as they had not paid instalments for SCF Plot No. 88 in time. It was found that there illegally committed in the resumption of SCF Plot No. 88. It was found that plot SCF No. 87 was never put to auction and as such they could not lay claim to plot SCF No. 87. Auction which took place covers only plot SCF No. 88. It was found that civil courts jurisdiction is barred under Section 20 of the Punjab Urban Estates (Development and Regulation) Act, 1964 so far as cognizance of this matter is concerned. 5. Plaintiffs went in appeal against the order of Additional Senior Sub Judge, Kharar dated 5.9.1994 which was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Ropar vide order dated 28.4.1997. 6. Still not satisfied, plaintiffs have come up in regular second appeal to this Court. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that in the advertisement Ex. 6. Still not satisfied, plaintiffs have come up in regular second appeal to this Court. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that in the advertisement Ex. P-1 which appeared in the issue of Tribune dated 2.1.1983 it had been clearly mentioned that the following commercial sites in the Urban Estate SAS Nagar will sold through open auction on free hold basis at 11.00 AM on 9.1.1983, Sunday in front of the office of the Director, Housing and Urban Development, Punjab, SCO No. 2453-54, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh : Sector No. Plot SCF No. Size Category Total No. Sites 55 34 & 35 33.00"x70.00" General 2 (Phase-I) 61 xxx xxx xxx xxx (Phase-VII & VII) 59 87 & 88 3313"x66.00" Atta chakki 1 (Phase-V) 61 xxx xxx xxx (Phase-VII) 61 xxx xxx xxx xxx (Phase-VII) 9. It was submitted that it had clearly been mentioned that everybody had given bid for plot/SCF Nos. 87 & 88 corner, 33.3" x 66.00" Atta Chakki which was one site and the appellants had also given the bid for the site of atta chakki comprising plot/SCF Nos. 87 & 88 and they being the highest bidders and their bid was accepted, they were entitled to the allotment of plot/SCF Nos. 87 & 88, 33.3"x 66.00" corner and their bid was for Rs. 4,57,500/- for SCF Nos. 87 & 88. Allotment letter dated 31.1.1983 issued to them by the Estate Officer, Urban Estate Punjab allotting them only SCF No. 88 17.3"x 66.00" for Rs. 4,57,500/- for atta chakki was not binding on them and that they were entitled to plot No. 87-88 corner 33.3" x 66.00" for Rs. 4,57,500/-. It was submitted that plot No. 87-88 corner in Sector 59 (Phase-VII) was described as "one site", in the advertisement, and, therefore, plot No. 87-88 corner could not be described as 2 sites through corrigendurn. It was submitted that in sector 61 (phase-VII) plots No. 126-127 16.6" x 66.00" semi-industrial was described as 2 sites. Similarly in sector 61 (phase-VII) plots No. 62 to 67, 74 and 75 were described as 8 sites. It was also submitted that the intention of the advertisement was thus to describe plots No. 87-88 corner in Sector 59 as one site. Similarly in sector 61 (phase-VII) plots No. 62 to 67, 74 and 75 were described as 8 sites. It was also submitted that the intention of the advertisement was thus to describe plots No. 87-88 corner in Sector 59 as one site. If the intention of the advertisement had been to describe plot No. 87-88 corner as 2 sites, the area of these plots would have been separately given i.e. 16.00"x66.00" and 1733"x66.00". It was also submitted that these two plots were described as one site and that they were meant for use for installation of atta chakki and atta chakki could not be installed on composite area of less than 33.3" x 66.00". It was also submitted that atta chakki could not be set up on an area of 16.00"x66.00" and therefore the intention was that these two plots should constitute one site and be put to auction as one site. It was also submitted that no corrigendurn could have been issued bifurcating plot No. 87-88 corner as follows : Sector No. Plot No. Size Category 59 8716".6x66.00" General (Phase-V) -do- 88 16.9"x66".00 Atta Chakki (Corner) 10. So as to modify the said advertisement because the Estate Officer alone could not say that plot No. 87 size 16.6"x66.00" shall be for general category and plot No. 88 size 16.9" x 66.00" shall be meant for atta chakki, when the area of the site, actual measurement, sector/phase in which the auction was to take place had been decided in a general meeting presided over by the Secretary to Government Punjab, Housing and Urban Development Department comprising the Chief Town Planner, the Deputy Town Planner etc. and without there being any approval by these signatories, no amendment or change in the area of site could be effected. It was submitted that the Chief Town Planner had no business to treat one site for atta chakki measuring 33.3"x66.00" comprising plots No. 87-88 corner as two SCFs. It was submitted that it could be done only by the same committee headed by the Secretary to Government Punjab, Housing and Urban Development Department. On the other hand, it was submitted by Sh. Rajan Gupta, Advocate for the respondents that the advertisement shall have no effect when it was modified through corrigendum. Through corrigendum plot Nos. It was submitted that it could be done only by the same committee headed by the Secretary to Government Punjab, Housing and Urban Development Department. On the other hand, it was submitted by Sh. Rajan Gupta, Advocate for the respondents that the advertisement shall have no effect when it was modified through corrigendum. Through corrigendum plot Nos. 87-88 corner in Sector 59 were described as two different plots of different sizes namely 16.6" x 66.00" and 16.9"x66.00" respectively. Plot No. 87 was described as for general category while plot No. 88 corner was described as for atta chakki. It is clear from the tenor of advt. that plot measuring 16.6"x66.00" was viewed as one plot. Plot Nos. 34 & 35 in sector 55 (phase-1), 33.00"x70.00" were viewed as two sites. In the information regarding the trade of commercial sites in Phase-V, Sector 59, the plots No. 59-60 are meant for use as post office. They are SCF/plots measuring 16.6"x66.00", 16.9" x 66.0" (33.3" x 66.0"). Plot Nos. 87-98 (SCF) have been described as 16.6" x66.00" and 16.9" x 66.00" (33.3" x 66.00"). This information was supplied through memo No. 2125/MNY(S) 55-59 dated Mohali, the 23.12.1982 Ex. PZ/A by the Chief Town Planner to the Estate Officer, Urban state Punjab, Chandigarh. In the ad the fallacy that arose was that plot Nos. 87-88 corner Phase-V, Sector 59 were described as 33.3" x 66.00" whereas the description should have been 16.6" x 66.00" and 16.9" x 66.00" and it should have been described as two sites. Through corrigendum, this fallacy was corrected. Both were commercial plots. The user of the plot No. 87 could be for "general trade" while the user of plot No. 88 could be for "atta chakki" alone. Through corrigendum these plots were described as two sites. Corrigendum appeared in The Tribunal before the auction took place and, therefore the corrigendum had the effect of amending the advertisement. 11. Plaintiff Nirmal Singh PW-1 stated that they gave bid for one site measuring 33.3"x66.00" which site for atta chakki, comprising plot Nos. 87 and 88 corner in sector 59, Phase-V. He stated that even in the list Ex. P2/B which was sent alongwith letter Ex. P2 the subject of which was information regarding the commercial plots trade wise in phase-III-B/2 and Phase-V, SAS Nagar, Mohali. At Sr. No. 6, plot Nos. 87 and 88 corner in sector 59, Phase-V. He stated that even in the list Ex. P2/B which was sent alongwith letter Ex. P2 the subject of which was information regarding the commercial plots trade wise in phase-III-B/2 and Phase-V, SAS Nagar, Mohali. At Sr. No. 6, plot Nos. 87 & 88 was described as Atta Chakki and the are given is 33.3"x66.00" comprising SCF Nos. 87 and 88. On the basis of this information, auction was conducted on 9.1.1983. They gave bid taking SCF Nos. 87 & 88 as one plot as indicated in the ad and according to the master plan shown at the spot on 2.4.1979 and the conditions conveyed at the spot. Since it was atta chakki plot, it fetched double the price being area of two plots whereas one plot was given for about 2/2.25 lacs. 1/4th of the bid money was paid at the spot. Before any plot is put to auction or any publication is made, general meeting comprising the Town Planner, Deputy Town Planner etc. is held which is presided over by the Secretary to Government Punjab, Housing and Development. In that meeting they fixed this area for atta chakki. No body could change the decision individually, when the allotment letter was received, only one plot was mentioned i.e. plot No. 88. Plot No. 87 should have also been mentioned as plot No. 87 and 88 were part and parcel of the same site. 12. Plaintiffs were to pay instalments falling due on 9.1.1994, 9.1.1985, 9.1.1986 and 9.1.1987. They failed to pay instalments due. They were called upon to appear and show cause before the Estate Officer as to why the site be not resumed on account of the non-payment of over due instalment On 2.4.1986, Nirmal Singh in one of the co-allottees appeared before the Estate Officer. At the outset, he stated that he will deposit Rs. 50,000/- within a weeks time and the remaining amount shall be paid in monthly instalments. He stated that because of the disturbed conditions in Punjab, his business suffered a lot and further there were 3/4 atta chakkis in the vicinity of their SCF and these had also affected their business. He also contended that the site in question had been purchased by them for the maximum price in the State of Punjab. He stated that because of the disturbed conditions in Punjab, his business suffered a lot and further there were 3/4 atta chakkis in the vicinity of their SCF and these had also affected their business. He also contended that the site in question had been purchased by them for the maximum price in the State of Punjab. The Estate Officer vide order dated 2.4.1986 did not find any weight in his submission and ordered the resumption of the plot/SCF No. 88 under Section 10 of the Punjab Urban Estate (Development and Regulation) Act, 1964. He ordered the forfeiture of the amount equal to 10% of the consideration money. 13. In their appeal to the Chief Administrator, the Chief Administrator vide order dated 4.6.1990 ordered that they shall deposit the due amount with simple interest @7% and penal interest @ 10% within 20 days from today i.e. 4.6.1990. Estate Officer was directed to communicate the exact amount payable by them within 10 days. In case they failed to deposit the amount alongwith simple interest @ 7% and penal interest @ 10% the order of resumption shall stand confirmed by him. They took revision to the Secretary to Government Punjab, Housing and Urban Development Department, Chandigarh against the order of the Chief Administrator. It was submitted before him that the Town Planing Department had earmarked the site of SCF Nos. 87 and 88 for atta chakki and the Estate Officer had also mentioned in advertisement in the Tribune dated 2.1.1983 these as two sites for atta chakki and they had given bid for these two sites for consideration of Rs. 4,57,500/- in the auction held on 9.1.1983 but the Estate Officer had wrongly issued allotment letter in respect of SCF No. 88 only. It was submitted that they were entitled to both these sites. Alternatively, it was submitted that as it was not possible to run the atta chakki on the site of SCF No. 88, site of SCF No. 87 be also given to them for which they were ready to pay the reserved price. 14. On the other hand, the LA for the Chief Administrator/Estate Officer submitted that through the corrigendum to the original advertisement published in the newspaper, the trade of SCF No. 87 was changed to general trade and the site of SCF only was advertised for atta chakki. 14. On the other hand, the LA for the Chief Administrator/Estate Officer submitted that through the corrigendum to the original advertisement published in the newspaper, the trade of SCF No. 87 was changed to general trade and the site of SCF only was advertised for atta chakki. In the bid sheet signed by the petitioners after the fall of the hammer only site of SCF No. 88 had been mentioned. Allotment letter issued to them was only with respect to site of SCF No. 88. In cross-examination, Nirmal Singh admitted that allotment letter was received by him five/six days after the auction in which only one plot was mentioned. He admitted that plot No. 88 had been resumed by the defendants and the payment therefore has not been accepted by the defendants. He admitted that even now he is running Atta Chakki on plot No. 88. Originally, plot Nos. 87 and 88 were advertised as one site for auction. Corrigendum thereto was duly published whereby SCF No. 87 was changed to general trade while SCF No. 88 was advertised for Atta Chakki. Plaintiff signed the bid sheet in respect of auction of plot No. 88. Allotment letter dated 31.1.83 was also issued to them qua plot SCF No. 88. Plaintiffs are estopped from agitating that to them plots No. 87 and 88 were allotted as one site. 15. Neither before the Estate Officer nor before the Chief Administrator their case was that plots No. 87 and 88 had been sold to them for Rs. 4,57,500/- and they were entitled to withhold the payment of the instalments till the allotment letter was issued to them with respect to plot/SCF No. 87 as well. Before the state Officer, their case was that they could not pay the instalments because of the disturbed conditions in the Punjab and also because there are three/four Atta chakkis in the vicinity of their SCF/plot which has also affected their business. It was for the first time before the Secretary that they raised the plea that they were not bound to pay the instalments due when they had purchased two plots for a sum of Rs. 4,57,500/- but allotment letter issued to them was only in respect of one plot i.e. SCF No. 88. 16. It was for the first time before the Secretary that they raised the plea that they were not bound to pay the instalments due when they had purchased two plots for a sum of Rs. 4,57,500/- but allotment letter issued to them was only in respect of one plot i.e. SCF No. 88. 16. In this case, no question of law arises what to talk of substantial question of law on the question of fact the appellants have lost in both the courts below. They had earlier lost in revision filed by them under Section 11(4) of the Punjab Urban Estate (Development and Regulation) Act, 1964 against the order of Chief Administrator dated 4.6.90. In my opinion, plot/SCF No. 88 was justifiably resumed by the Estate Officer. The Chief Administrator keeping in view that the petitioners (appellants herein) were eking out their livelihood by running Atta Chakki and the resumption of the plot will throw them out of gear, set aside the order of resumption provided that they deposited due amount with simple interest at the rate of 7% and penal interest at the rate of 10% within twenty days from 4.6.90. In case they fail to deposit the due amount alongwith simple interest at rate of 7% and penal interest at the rate of 10% upto date, the order of resumption would remain. 17. The Secretary to Government of Punjab, Housing and Urban Development Department vide order dated 11.9.92 ordered as follows :- "In view of the above discussion, I allow this petition only to the extent that the petitioners are allowed to make the payment of the overdue instalments together with interest including penal interest thereon as per orders of the C.A. within 30 days of the date of communication of this order. The amount of overdue instalments and interest upto 10.10.92 has been worked out by the Estate Officer which comes out to Rs. 7,66,171/-. If the petitioners fail to deposit this amount within the aforesaid period of 30 days, the impugned order of resumption shall become operative. Although, as stated above, the petitioners have, no legal claim whatsoever to the site of SCF No. 87, yet the opinion of the Chief Town Planner was sought. 7,66,171/-. If the petitioners fail to deposit this amount within the aforesaid period of 30 days, the impugned order of resumption shall become operative. Although, as stated above, the petitioners have, no legal claim whatsoever to the site of SCF No. 87, yet the opinion of the Chief Town Planner was sought. The C.T.P. vide his letter dated 30.9.91, has intimated that it is not possible to install a proper Atta Chakki in one plot and it would be desirable to install a proper Atta Chakki in two plots so that various activities in a modern Atta Chakki are properly planned and installed. In view of this advice of the C.T.P. I am inclined to give an option to the petitioners to purchase the site of SCF No. 87, Phase-V, Mohali, if it is available at the price of SCF No. 88 with interest @ 15% per annum w.e.f. the date of auction of site No. 88 till the date of payment. Alternatively, the petitioners shall be at liberty to surrender the site of SCF No. 88, Phase-V and get the refund of their money. The petitioners shall communicate option within 30 days of the date of communication of this order. If the petitioners opt to purchase the site of SCF No. 87, the E.O., Mohali shall communicate amount payable within 15 days of the receipt of option of the petitioners and the petitioners shall deposit the amount so communicated within 30 days of the date of receipt of intimation from the E.O. In case the petitioners fail either to exercise their option or to deposit the amount payable in respect of SCF No. 88 or SCF No. 87, within the period specified above, this option shall stand withdrawn." 18. The order of the Secretary is quite reasonable and just. It has taken care of that to install a proper Atta Chakki two plots are needed, so that the various activities in a modern Atta Chakki are properly planned and installed. However, since the plaintiffs were litigating bona fide, they should not have been burdened with penal interest. So far as the amount of instalments qua plot No. 88 is concerned, they shall pay interests at the rate of 10% per annum on the amount of Rs. 4,57,500/- minus the amount of Rs. 1,14,375/- paid as earnest money on 9.1.83 i.e. Rs. 3,43,125/- till it is paid. So far as the amount of instalments qua plot No. 88 is concerned, they shall pay interests at the rate of 10% per annum on the amount of Rs. 4,57,500/- minus the amount of Rs. 1,14,375/- paid as earnest money on 9.1.83 i.e. Rs. 3,43,125/- till it is paid. Interest shall be calculated w.e.f. 9.1.83 on the said amount of Rs. 3,43,125/-. They can pay the amount so worked out in six equated instalment payable annually. Each instalment shall carry interest at the rate of 10% per annum. In case the plaintiffs continue paying the amount as per instalments, the resumption of plot No. 88 shall stand set aside. If the appellants fail to deposit any two consecutive instalments, the resumption order in respect of plot/SCF No. 88 shall become revived. If they are interested in purchasing plot/SCF No. 87, the same shall be sold to them for Rs. 4,57,500/- as on 9.1.83. From 9.1.83, they shall pay interest at the rate of 10% per annum on the amount of Rs. 4,57,500/-. The Estate Officer shall work out the amount payable qua plot/SCF Nos. 87 and 88 and shall send necessary communication to the appellants within three months of the receipt of copy of this order. The amount qua the plot/SCF No. 87 shall also be paid in nine equated instalments payable annually. The appeal stands disposed of in terms of what has been stated here-in-before. Appeal disposed of.