ORDER : S.N. Variava, J. - Heard parties. 2. Leave granted. 3. These appeals are against the orders of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dated 14-1-2000 and 15-5-2000. 4. Briefly stated, the facts are as follows: the appellants claim that they had a gurudwara in Sector 34-A, Chandigarh. However, admittedly that land was acquired for road construction. Admittedly, on such acquisition they received compensation for the land. It is however claimed that an alternate site was also agreed to be given in Sector 43. A site in Sector 43 was allotted to the appellants in 1988. The letter of allotment dated 9-12-1988 specifically provided that a building which was to be constructed on the site in accordance with a plan, which was to conform to the Punjab Capital (Development & Registration) Building Rules, 1952 and the zoning plans. The letter of allotment also provided that the building was to be completed within a period of three years from the date of allotment. Thus, as per the letter of allotment the building should have been completed on or before 9-12-1991. 5. It appears that some temporary structures were put up without getting any plan sanctioned. As no construction, as per the sanctioned plans, took place within a period of three years and even thereafter, a show-cause notice dated 16-1-1995 was issued. By order dated 29-11-1995 the allotment was cancelled. The revision as against that order was dismissed on 13-10-1999. The writ petition came to be dismissed by the impugned order dated 14-1-2000. The review petition was dismissed on 15-5-2000. 6. Before us reliance is placed upon Rule 16 of the Chandigarh Leasehold of Sites and Buildings Rules, 1973, as amended, with effect from 13-1-1995. This rule inter alia provides that if the building is not completed within the prescribed period or within the extended period, parties could be given an opportunity to complete the building on payment of the fees set out in that rule. It is submitted that as the rule itself envisages an extension, the harsh remedy of cancellation of allotment should not be allowed to stand. It is submitted that the appellants are willing to demolish the temporary structure, apply for extension, get a plan sanctioned and complete the construction after paying the fees as prescribed in Rule 16 of the Rules. Reliance was also placed on Banarsidass Musadilal v. State of U.P., 1984 Supp SCC 204. It is submitted that the appellants are willing to demolish the temporary structure, apply for extension, get a plan sanctioned and complete the construction after paying the fees as prescribed in Rule 16 of the Rules. Reliance was also placed on Banarsidass Musadilal v. State of U.P., 1984 Supp SCC 204. 7. These are matters which are to be considered by the respondents. In this appeal the Court has to see whether there is any infirmity in the orders passed by the lower authorities or in the impugned judgments. All the authorities have held, and in our view correctly, that no application for extension of time was ever made. Thus, Rule 16 could not be applied. It does appear that before the revisional authority, orally a statement was made that if five years' time is given a building would be constructed. Such an oral statement could not be and was not acted upon. The case relied upon is of no assistance as it is based on facts which are completely different. 8. We thus see no infirmity in the impugned judgment or in the orders of the lower authority. This appeal therefore stands dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. 9. At this stage i.e. after the order is passed, our attention is drawn to Rule 21-A of the Rules. It is requested that this Court direct the respondents to consider the appellants' case under Rule 21-A. In our view, it is not for this Court to issue any direction. It is for the appellants to apply, if they so desire. We are sure that if any such application is made, it will be considered by the respondents in accordance with law. Appeal dismissed.