IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

1. RSA-2306-1995 (O&M)

Reserved on :-08.09.2025 Pronounced on:-13.10.2025 Shikhar Chand (Since Deceased) Through His LRs and Another … Appellants Versus Haryana Urban Development Authority, Chandigarh and Others ... Respondents

2. RSA-1489-1996 (O&M) Haryana Urban Development Authority, Chandigarh and Others … Appellant Versus Shikhar Chand (Since Deceased) Through His LRs and Another ... Respondents ****

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Argued by :-

Mr. Vishal Aggarwal, Advocate for the appellants RSA-2306-1995 and for respondent in RSA-1489-1996. . Mr. Harmanjot Singh Gill, Advocate for the respondents in RSA-2306-1995 and for appellants in RSA-1489-1996.

****

VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J .

1. This common order shall govern the disposal of the captioned Regular Second Appeals (hereinafter referred to as ‘RSAs’), which arise from the same legal and factual controversy. Considering that the parties are same in both matters which arise from common decree and judgment and that their respective counsel have expressed concurrence, the RSAs are being adjudicated collectively in the interest of judicial economy and efficiency.

2. At the request of the learned counsel for the parties, the factual background for the purposes of this common order is being taken from RSA-2306-1995 titled ‘Shikhar Chand (Since Deceased) Through His LRs and Another v. Haryana Urban Development Authority, Chandigarh and Others’, as it provides a comprehensive account of the relevant facts. Given that the issues in the both appeals are same, the facts set out in RSA-2306-1995 shall be treated as representative for the purpose of adjudicating both the appeals.

3. The appellants/plaintiffs in RSA-2306-1995 and appellants/defendants in RSA-1489-1996 have filed the captioned RSAs challenging the judgment and decree rendered by the learned Court below, seeking appropriate relief against the findings and directions therein.

4. The essential facts giving rise to the present appeal are summarized as follows:-

“Pursuant to an advertisement issued by the defendants on 25.08.1989 for the auction of freehold residential plots in Sectors 31–31A (Part), 30, 39, 40, and 41, Urban Estate, Gurgaon, the auction was held on 31.08.1989. The appellants participated and were declared the highest bidders for Plot No. 126-P, Sector 31–32A, measuring 420 sq. meters, for ₹ ₹

6,80,400/-. They deposited 68,040/- (10% of the bid amount)

on the spot, as per the auction terms. The allotment letter was issued on 09.10.1989, directing payment of 15% of the bid amount within 30 days. The appellants, though delayed, deposited two drafts dated 09.02.1990 amounting to ₹ ₹

1,02,060/- towards principal and 6,130/- towards interest under Clause 25 of the allotment letter permitting delayed payment with 15% annual interest. However, the defendants, vide letter No. 1162 dated 16.02.1990, cancelled the allotment, ₹

forfeited 68,040/-, and returned the drafts. The appellants contend that upon payment of the due amount with interest, the defendants had no authority to cancel the allotment. Accordingly, the appellants filed a suit seeking mandatory injunction to withdraw the cancellation letter dated 16.02.1990 and treat them as valid allottees of Plot No. 126-P, and a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from re- auctioning the said plot, the cancellation being illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction.”

5. The respondents/defendants entered appearance and contested the suit in its entirety, contending that respondents admit that the auction was held as stated; however, the appellants failed to deposit fifteen percent (15%) of the bid amount within the stipulated period of thirty days from receipt of the allotment letter, or even within the extended sixty days. Consequently, the allotment was rightly cancelled in accordance with law. As per Clause-4 of the allotment letter, the appellants were required to pay ₹

1,02,060/- within thirty (30) days,