JUDGMENT Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.: - The petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing of order dated 08.07.1985 (Annexure P-13), passed by respondent No.3, order dated 26.08.1998 (Annexure P-25), passed by respondent No.2, order dated 10.10.2001 (Annexure P-27), passed by respondent No.1, and also for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to restore allotment of residential plot to the petitioner, which has been cancelled vide order dated 08.07.1985 (Annexure P-13). 2. In brief, as per the case set up by the petitioner, he applied for a residential plot measuring 7-½ marlas in Urban Estate, Mohali, on 10.10.1973 and paid the earnest money. On 25.03.1975, respondent No.3 informed him about revision in allotment policy and asked him to deposit some more amount to complete the earnest money, at the revised rate, which was deposited by the petitioner on 07.04.1975. On 16.02.1979 and 26.02.1979, the petitioner also deposited some more amount on the asking of respondent No.3 to complete some formalities, but he was informed on 18.04.1979 that as per policy, he can not be allotted an 8 marla plot, rather, if he wanted to have a plot of 10 marla or 1 kanal, then he should deposit the full price. On 11.05.1981, the government revised its allotment policy and the petitioner was informed that he should deposit some more money to complete 25% amount of the price of plot, at the rate of Rs.85/- per Sq. Yard. The petitioner, vide his application dated 15.05.1981 (Annexure P-7), opted for a plot of 200 Sq. Yards at the revised rates and deposited Rs.1,350/- to complete 25% price of the opted plot, but the government again revised its allotment policy in the year 1983, as per which plots of different sizes were to be allotted, in terms of the income criteria. A public notice was also issued on 10.08.1983 of the revised policy, according to which the petitioner was eligible for a plot of 250 Sq. Yards, in terms of his income, which was above Rs.25,000/- per annum. Thus, vide his application dated 30.08.1983 (Annexure P-10), petitioner opted for a plot of 300 Sq. Yards and deposited Rs.1858/- to complete 25% price of the opted plot. Respondent No.1 held the draw of lots and the petitioner was considered for allotment of plot of 262.5 Sq. Yards instead of 300 Sq. Yards, as the plots of 300 Sq. Thus, vide his application dated 30.08.1983 (Annexure P-10), petitioner opted for a plot of 300 Sq. Yards and deposited Rs.1858/- to complete 25% price of the opted plot. Respondent No.1 held the draw of lots and the petitioner was considered for allotment of plot of 262.5 Sq. Yards instead of 300 Sq. Yards, as the plots of 300 Sq. Yards were not even carved out. In any case, after being successful in the draw of lots, the petitioner was allotted plot No.332, Phase XI, Mohali, an allotment letter of that plot was issued in his favour, he was asked to deposit Rs.3,368/- to complete 25% price of the plot and to submit an affidavit of his income. On 20.03.1985, the petitioner deposited Rs.3,368/- and also sent his affidavit disclosing his annual income which was above Rs.25,000/- per annum. However, vide order dated 08.07.1985 (Annexure P-13), respondent No.3 cancelled allotment of plot No.332, Phase XI, Mohali, on the ground that as per affidavit submitted by the petitioner, his income was more than the prescribed income in the policy, which should have been between Rs.20,000/- to Rs.25,000/-. After cancellation of allotment, the petitioner made a representation on 12.07.1985, but he was informed by respondent No.3 that his plot has been cancelled as his income was more than the prescribed limit meant for a plot of 262.5 Sq. Yards. It is pertinent to mention that the petitioner was informed that he can file an appeal against order dated 08.07.1985 (Annexure P-13) before the competent authority, within the period of limitation. The petitioner, instead of filing of an appeal, made a representation dated 24.01.1990 (Annexure P-17) to the Chief Administrator, Urban Estate, Punjab, Mohali, in which he was allegedly given a personal hearing and was advised to approach the government. The petitioner, vide his application dated 14.09.1990 (Annexure P-19) approached the government and sent reminders dated 26.10.1990 and 12.12.1990 (Annexures P-20 & P-21 respectively). The petitioner was ultimately informed, vide letter dated 07.11.2001 (Annexure P-23), that as he did not file any appeal against the impugned order dated 08.07.1985 (Annexure P-13) and had rather requested the government to decide his representation as an appeal, his request was turned down, with an advise to file an appeal before the Chief Administrator, as per the procedure prescribed. It was only then, the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 11(1) and (3) of the Urban Estates (Development & Regulations) Act, 1964 [for short “the 1964 Act”] which was dismissed by the Chief Administrator, vide order dated 26.08.1998 (Annexure P- 25), on the ground that the appeal is highly belated as it has been filed on 02.12.1991 against order dated 08.07.1985 (Annexure P-13), i.e., after expiry of 6 years, though the appeal could have been filed within 30 days of the passing of the order. Aggrieved against order dated 26.08.1998 (Annexure P-25), the petitioner filed a revision petition under Section 45(8) of the Punjab Regional & Town Planning and Development Act, 1995 [for short “1995 Act”] because by that time, the 1964 Act was repealed. The revision petition was also dismissed by respondent No.1, vide its impugned order dated 10.10.2001 (Annexure P-27) on the ground of delay. Aggrieved against the impugned orders, referred to above, the petitioner has approached this Court. 3. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that impugned orders (Annexures P-13, P-25 & P-27) are illegal, as the basic order dated 08.07.1985 (Annexure P-13), by which, allotment of plot to the petitioner in the draw of lots has been cancelled merely on the ground that the income of the petitioner was more than the prescribed limit for the category of plot in question. It is submitted that the petitioner was working in the bank and his income was not stationary/static, rather it kept on increasing with the passage of time in view of various factors, but respondent No.3 should have taken into consideration the income of the petitioner on the date when the initial application was filed for seeking allotment of plot and not on the date when the plot was actually allotted. In respect of delay, it is submitted that respondent No.2 should have exercised its suo motu power of revision and should not have dismissed the appeal merely on the technical ground of delay. 4. In reply, counsel for the respondents has contended that the petitioner was apprised of the continuous changes/revision in the allotment policies as regards income criteria, which he chose to follow and lastly, in terms of the revised policy, published on 10.08.1983, he had opted for a plot of size of 300 Sq. Yards, but as plot in the said category was not available, he was considered for a 262.5 Sq. Yards, but as plot in the said category was not available, he was considered for a 262.5 Sq. Yards plot, but the income disclosed by him in his affidavit dated 26.07.1985 was found to be much more than the income criteria prescribed for allotment of 262.5 Sq. Yards plot. In view thereof, the allotment of plot in his favour was cancelled. It is further submitted that the petitioner is himself guilty of delay in filing of the appeal and cannot take the plea that he was a layman because he was employed in the bank, it is presumed that he had the knowledge of law and instead of filing representations, he should have filed the appeal within the statutory period of limitation, in accordance with law, and the representation, in any case, could not have been treated by the authorities concerned as an appeal or a revision. He has further submitted that there is not even an iota of explanation anywhere in the writ petition as to why the petitioner did not file the appeal in time. It is, thus, argued that unexplained delay of 6 years has rightly been not condoned. 5. We have heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner, who was working in a bank, had applied for a plot way-back in the year 1973 and has been in constant touch with the respondents, who have been revising their allotment policies from time to time. It is also not disputed that income of petitioner, as indicated by him, in his affidavit dated 20.03.1985, which became the basis for cancellation of plot on 08.07.1985, was over and above the prescribed limit. The question, whether the right of the petitioner was to be considered at the time of application or at the time of allotment, can only be answered after the petitioner crosses the hurdle of limitation, which has been raised by counsel for the respondents. 7. There is no dispute that impugned order dated 08.07.1985 (Annexure P-13) was appealable and the statutory period for filing the appeal was 30 days. The petitioner has been making representations to the government instead of filing statutory appeal and had spent a substantial period of time in that process. 8. 7. There is no dispute that impugned order dated 08.07.1985 (Annexure P-13) was appealable and the statutory period for filing the appeal was 30 days. The petitioner has been making representations to the government instead of filing statutory appeal and had spent a substantial period of time in that process. 8. Admittedly, the order of cancellation of plot was passed by the Estate Officer on 08.07.1985 but the appeal has been filed on 02.12.1991, which is apparently highly belated and there is no explanation given by the petitioner in order to ignore the said delay. The order dated 26.08.1998 was passed by the Additional Chief Administrator, PUDA, by which the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed being time barred against which revision petition was filed under Section 45(8) of the Punjab Regional & Town Planning & Development Act, 1995, which has been dismissed vide Annexure P-27 by the Principal Secretary to Government of Punjab, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Chandigarh, who has also considered that even review application could not have been considered. 9. Looking from all angles, we are of the considered opinion that the petitioner has failed to give any reasonable and satisfactory explanation of the delay of 6 years in filing of the appeal before the Competent Authority which has been dismissed on the ground of delay and as such, no relief can be granted to the petitioner in the present writ petition. The writ petition is, thus, dismissed, however, without any order as to costs.