Judgment The issue involved in all the writ petitions is one and the same and hence the same were heard together and a common order is passed. 2. The petitioners have come up with these writ petitions to direct the second respondent to allot the plot that has been allotted to petitioners or any other plot under Tamil Nadu Urban Development Scheme at Trichy. 3. The petitioners were allotted a Plot No.L.II 2103, Plot No.L.II 2359 and Plot No.L.II 2525 respectively by the second respondent on February 1998 by the proceedings viz. Lr.No.TA3/6033/98, Lr.No.TA3/6030/98 and Lr.No.TA3/6033/98. The period of installments was 180 months on a monthly installment of Rs.369/-. The initial deposit is Rs.10,200/- and a balance sum of Rs.30,700/- was payable in installments basis with the interest at the rate of 12% Per Annum. As per the allotment, the petitioners paid the initial amount and respondents also received the same. In case of any default, the petitioners have to pay a monthly installment together with interest at 18% of the defaulted amount. The petitioners were paid monthly installments. For some months they did not pay the installment. Subsequently they paid the installments with interest to the respondents. While so, the second respondent cancelled the allotment by proceedings Lr.No.TA3/6033/98, Lr.No.TA3/6030/98 and Lr.No.TA3/6033/98, dated 26.12.2006 and directed the petitioners to surrender the plot allotted to them. The petitioners collected all the details of payment made by them and by the letter, dated 11.06.08, they sent the balance dues less the payment made already to the respondents. 4. The respondents returned to the said payment by his letter, dated 29.08.2008 stating that their allotments were cancelled and re-allotted to third parties. 5. According to the petitioners, the respondents gave an advertisement in the newspaper Dinamalar and Hindu dated 14.07.2009 calling upon the persons, whose allotment has already been cancelled for default in payment to pay entire payment less the payment already made. On seeing the advertisement, the petitioners by letter, dated 23.07.2009 approached the second respondent immediately. The second respondent did not send any reply. Therefore, the petitioners sent several remainders to the respondents and also approached the second respondent in person. The respondents did not pass any orders on the representation. Therefore, the petitioners filed present writ petitions for the relief stated supra. 6. Admittedly, the petitioners have committed default in payment. Subsequently, they paid monthly installments with interest. Therefore, the petitioners sent several remainders to the respondents and also approached the second respondent in person. The respondents did not pass any orders on the representation. Therefore, the petitioners filed present writ petitions for the relief stated supra. 6. Admittedly, the petitioners have committed default in payment. Subsequently, they paid monthly installments with interest. Further the allotment to the petitioners were cancelled by the respondents on 26.12.2006. They did not challenge the said cancellation. Now, the petitioners claim that the relief based on the advertisement wherein the respondents gave an opportunity to the defaulter to pay the entire amounts, less the amounts already paid, so that the petitioners allotment could be restored to them. The petitioners, by his letter dated 23.07.2009 expressed their consent to pay the balance amounts and furnished the details of payments already made. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioners sent the letter to the respondents. Further there is nothing on record to show that the petitioners sent their willingness to pay the amounts within the time prescribed by the respondents. 7. The petitioners have failed to substantiate their claim that they gave their consent for payment of balance amount for re-allotment of the respective plots allotted to them. The allotment of the plots to the petitioners were already cancelled and re-alloted to third parties. 8. In view of the cancellation of allotment and re-allotment to some third parties, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.