SANDHYA JINDAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE issues raised in these writ petitions which have been filed against the cancellation of allotment of Booth Site and Shop-cum-Office/flat Sites in Sector 15, Part-II, Gurgaon, are almost identical and therefore, all the petitions are being decided by a common order.

(2.) A few facts: Petitioner-Smt. Sandhya Jindal gave highest bid of Rs. 2,60,000/-in an open auction held on 26th February, 1992 by the Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA), Gurgaon for Booth Site No. 47, Sector 15. Part-II, Gurgaon. She deposited Rs. 26,000/- as 10 percent of the bid amount at the fall of the hammer. After about six months, the petitioner received letter Annexure P2 from the Estate Officer, HUDA, Gurgaon informing that allotment made in her favour had been cancelled and 10 percent amount deposited by her had been forfeited. Aggrieved by the cancellation of allotment, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Administrator, HUDA, on the ground that she had not received formal confirmation of allotment and there was no default on her part of making payment of the amount. She expressed her willingness to pay 50 percent value of the plot with interest as per rules. Her appeal remained pending with the Appellate Authority for about nine months when it was dismissed vide order Annexure P6 dated 25th August, 1993. Feeling dissatisfied by the order of the Appellate Authority, the petitioner filed a revision petition before respondent No. 2. As on the date of the filing of this petition, her revision had not been decided by the Government. However, during the pendency of the writ petition, the revision petition has been dismissed as would appear from Annexure P11 dated 15th March, 1993 conveyed to the petitioner by the Chief Administrator, HUDA.

(3.) PETITIONER -2. M. Garg gave highest bid of Rs. 6,72,000/- on 26th February, 1992 in the open auction held by the Estate Officer, HUDA, Gurgaon for allotment of Shop-cum-Office/flat Site No. 4 in Sector 15, Part-II, Gurgaon. He deposited 10 percent money at the fall of hammer. Subsequently, his allotment was cancelled by the Estate Officer and 10 percent amount was forfeited vide Annexure P2 on the ground that he failed to deposit 15 percent of the bid money in spite of communication dated 1st April, 1992. His appeal came to be dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 11th May, 1993. His revision petition has also been dismissed during the pendency of the writ petition. Challenge to the orders impugned in this petition is based on the same grounds on which challenge in Civil Writ Petition No. 3214 of 1995 has been made.