JUDGMENT Surya Kant, J. (Oral) Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority, Patiala (for short, the PUDA) seeks quashing of the order dated 22.10.2012 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Special Secretary, House Building and Urban Development Department, Punjab-cum-Revisional Authority, whereby on a revision petition preferred by the second respondent the amount of forfeiture has been reduced from 10% to 5%. 2. The facts may be noticed briefly. 3. The second respondent is a differently-abled person who filled three separate application forms for three plots of different sizes, i.e., 300 square yards, 250 square yards and 200 square yards in the reserved category. It is pertinent to mention here that an applicant was permitted to submit more than one applications. 4. The second respondent was successful in draw of lots for all the three applications and consequently, he was allotted plot No.19 measuring 300 square yards, plot No.125 measuring 250 square yards and plot No.68 measuring 200 square yards at Shaheed Bhagat Singh Dhandogal Enclave, Amargarh, District Sangrur. 5. The Estate Officer, PUDA vide letter dated 18.10.2011 informed the second respondent that as per the terms and conditions contained in the Information Brochure, he was entitled to retain only one plot and was required to surrender the remaining two, for which he was asked to exercise the option. The second respondent vide letter dated 19.11.2011 informed the Estate Officer, PUDA that he would retain plot No.19 measuring 300 square yards and surrender other two plots and requested for refund of the earnest money deposited by him towards the surrendered plots. The Estate Officer while refunding the amount of earnest money forfeited 10% of the allotment price on the premise that the second respondent did not surrender those plots within 30 days of the allotment as was required as per the terms and conditions contained in the Information Brochure. 6. Aggrieved by 10% forfeiture of the amount, the second respondent went in appeal which was turned down and still aggrieved, he filed a revision petition before the State Government which has been partly allowed vide the impugned order reducing the forfeiture from 10% to 5%. 6. Aggrieved by 10% forfeiture of the amount, the second respondent went in appeal which was turned down and still aggrieved, he filed a revision petition before the State Government which has been partly allowed vide the impugned order reducing the forfeiture from 10% to 5%. It would be apposite to reproduce the following reasons assigned by the Revisional Authority while accepting the claim of respondent No.2 in part:- “.......Keeping in view these facts, the allegation against the petitioner for violating the terms and conditions is proved but the amount of the earnest money Rs.2,47,500/-has been forfeited is too much and especially in such circumstances when due to this negligence the Estate Office has not suffered any financial loss. Therefore, I think it appropriate that the forfeited amount may be reduced from 10 percent to 5 percent. Therefore, the revision petition is accepted and the order of Chief Administrator and Estate Officer, Patiala Development Authority, Patiala, are rectified to the extent that forfeiting half amount out of the amount deposited as earnest money, the half amount may be refunded to the petitioner. The order was kept reserved on 27.9.2012 which is issued today. The parties may be apprised of the order.........” 7. PUDA now impugns the above-stated order, inter-alia, contending that since forfeiture to the extent of 10% is permissible, no interference ought to have been made by the Revisional Authority. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner we do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. We say so for the reason that under Section 45(3) of the Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Act, 1995, wherever applicable, no forfeiture exceeding 10% of the total sale consideration, interest and other dues payable by an allottee, is permissible. In the instant case, the Estate Officer has imposed penalty of forfeiture to the maximum, namely, 10% despite the fact that the delay in surrendering two plots by respondent No.2 did not cause any severe prejudice like financial loss to PUDA as the earnest money deposited by him for those two plots was retained by PUDA till the refund was made after surrender of those plots. Similarly, the allottees in waiting list also did not suffer as their liability to pay the due installments commenced only after the formal allotment. Similarly, the allottees in waiting list also did not suffer as their liability to pay the due installments commenced only after the formal allotment. Be that as it may, the forfeiture of 5% amount is sufficient to compensate PUDA if at all any loss was caused to it. That apart, the Revisional Authority has acted within the ambit of its statutory powers under Section 45(8) of the Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Act, 1995, hence no case to interfere with the aforesaid order in exercise of our writ jurisdiction is made out.