JUDGMENT :

Sureshwar Thakur, J.

Since all the writ petitions (supra) arise from a common theretos auction held by the respondent concerned, therebys all the writ petitions (supra) are liable to be decided through a common verdict being made thereons.

2. Though, the facts in each of the writ petitions (supra) are somewhat different, but the facts of the lead writ petition i.e. CWP No. 18713 of 2024 are extracted hereinafter.

Facts of CWP-18713-2024

3. Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner seeks the quashing of the letter dated 24.7.2024 (Annexure P-1), thus rendered by respondent No. 2, wherebys the representation dated 12.7.2024 (Annexure P-16), as moved by the petitioner for allotment and possession of the subject property, rather became rejected.

4. It is averred in the instant petition that on 7.3.2022, thus respondent No. 1 issued a public notice for conducting e-auction of double storeyed booths in Sector 62, Gurugram-II. Pursuant to the said notice, thus on 15.3.2022, the petitioner deposited Rs. 2,04,600/- as earnest money, and, submitted her bid. Subsequently, through the e-auction held on 17.3.2022, the petitioner purchased Booth No. 4, measuring 22.69 sq. mtr. situated in Sector-62, Gurugram for a sale consideration of Rs. 94,20,600/-. In pursuance thereto, the petitioner also deposited 10% of the bid amount. It is further averred that upon the acceptance of the petitioner's bid, the apposite Letter of Intent dated 17.5.2022 was issued by respondent No. 1. Subsequently, in compliance of the terms of said Letter of Intent, the petitioner also deposited the balance sale consideration, whereafter, the letter of allotment dated 10.10.2022 became issued by respondent No. 1. Vide the said letter, the said plot was allotted to the petitioner on a freehold basis, in terms of and subject to the provisions of the Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran Act, 1977. Subsequently, through letter dated 10.10.2022, issued by respondent No. 1, an offer for assuming possession over the subject plot, thus was also made to the present petitioner.

5. Though, in compliance of the conditions laid in the said letter, the petitioner vide application dated 12.10.2022 applied for taking the possession of the said plot. However, on 12.10.2022, the supra application became rejected by the respondent concerned, on the ground that the development works were not complete. Subsequently, on 10.5.2023, the petitioner preferred another application seeking therebys assumption of possession over the subject plot. Even the said application became rejected on 16.5.2023, thus on the ground, that since the demarcation plan was not received, therefore, the delivery of possession qua the disputed plot, rather cannot be made to the petitioner. It is further averred that a letter dated 2.5.2023 was sent from the office of the Chief Administrator, HSVP, Panchkula, to the Estate Officer, HSVP, Gurugram, requesting him to give possession in respect of the booth sites concerned, thus within 7 days but only if there is no stay/litigation. Subsequently, the petitioner was telephonically informed to visit the office of the respondent concerned. On visiting the office of the respondent concerned, the petitioner was informed that a decision has been taken by the Chief Administrator, HSVP, to refund the deposited money in respect of the booth site concerned.

6. Being aggrieved from the decisions of the authorities concerned, the petitioner moved a representation dated 12.7.2024 (Annexure P-24) with a request to deliver possession of the subject site to her. In response to the representation (supra), the respondent concerned, sent the impugned letter dated 24.7.2024, wherebys the allotment of the subject plot as made in favour of the petitioner became rejected.

Inference of this Court

7. Uncontrovertedly, all the petitioners in the writ petitions (supra) were the highest bidders for the plots concerned, which became offered, in an e-auction conducted by the respondent concerned