Safiya Malik

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana Division Bench of Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Vikram Aggarwal allowed a group of writ petitions challenging the rejection of allotments made through public auction by the Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran (HSVP). The Court held that the auction had culminated in concluded contracts and the respondents were bound to honour them under constitutional and contractual obligations. The Court directed HSVP to issue allotment letters, execute conveyance deeds, and hand over possession to the allottees within two weeks. Additionally, the Court awarded each petitioner exemplary damages of ₹1,00,000 for unnecessary litigation.

The petitions arose from the e-auction conducted by the HSVP on 17 March 2022 for double-storeyed booth sites in Sector 62, Gurugram. Each petitioner was the highest bidder for the respective booths and deposited the requisite 10% of the bid amount. Letters of Intent were subsequently issued, followed by full payment of the balance consideration. Allotment letters were issued to the petitioners in due course, officially transferring the plots on a freehold basis, in accordance with the provisions of the Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran Act, 1977.

Also Read: “Tapentadol Hydrochloride Not in NDPS Schedule and No Divergent View Cited: Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail”

After the issuance of allotment letters, the petitioners applied for physical possession. These requests were denied by HSVP, citing incomplete development and lack of a demarcation plan. Subsequently, the Chief Administrator directed that possession not be handed over and that refunds be initiated instead. Petitioners were informally informed that refunds would be processed. In response, they submitted representations between August and December 2023 seeking possession instead of refunds.

HSVP issued rejection letters to these representations, citing encumbrances on the sites and litigation (CWP No. 7218/2020 – Satpal & Others v. State of Haryana) affecting the disputed booth sites. HSVP also noted a decision to shift the planning area and refund the amounts deposited, despite having accepted full payment and issued allotment letters.

Petitioners contended that HSVP had already created binding and concluded contracts by accepting full consideration and issuing allotment letters. They argued that HSVP could not unilaterally repudiate these contracts by citing encumbrances that predated the auction. The petitioners maintained that the refund of consideration without consent was an act of breach and violated Article 299 of the Constitution of India. It was submitted that some similarly situated allottees had been granted possession pursuant to earlier court orders.

HSVP contended that the possession could not be granted due to legal restraints and pending litigation. It further claimed that no formal order of cancellation was passed but only a decision to refund, which was implemented in good faith.

The Court observed that the petitioners were the highest bidders in a public auction and had deposited the entire sale consideration, creating a “concluded and settled contract.” It stated in italics: “The said concluded and settled contract was inviolable, especially when the respondent concerned is the instrumentality or an agency of the State… mothered by a State legislation.”

Citing Article 299 of the Constitution, the Court recorded: “Executive actions or concluded contracts entered into inter se the respondent and the present petitioners… require constitutional sanctity.”

It held that the HSVP could not unilaterally cancel or reverse concluded contracts through administrative decisions, especially where the petitioners had fulfilled their obligations:
“The constitutional assurance meted to the promisees concerned… cannot be evaded on a prima facie flimsy pretext.”

The Court took note of internal HSVP correspondence that acknowledged the booths were under encroachment and litigation, and thus not available for possession. It stated: “There was complete lack of diligence, as also prima facie commission of torts of non-feasance, mis-feasance and malfeasance, on the part of the respondent concerned.”

Rejecting HSVP’s argument that no order of rejection had been passed, the Court referred to the petitioners’ averments and stated:
“Despite the said averment requiring a striking denial… only a most evasive denial has been made thereto.” “The vague or evasive denial made… leads to an inference that the averment made in the petition… is to be assigned credence.”

Referring to previous decisions in Raj Singh v. HSVP and Seema Gupta v. HSVP, where similarly situated allottees were granted possession, the Court concluded that the same relief should be extended to the present petitioners. It recorded:
“The allottees thereins, who are similarly situated… have been handed over possession… therebys similar relief is to be also assigned to the present petitioners.”

Also Read: “Punishment Is Just and Reasonable”: Madras High Court Upholds Compulsory Retirement of Airport Security Officer for Lapse Leading to Smuggling Attempt

The Court allowed all the writ petitions and directed the respondent concerned to forthwith issue allotment letters to the allottees. Since the entire sale consideration had already been paid, HSVP was also directed to execute the registered deeds of conveyance in respect of each subject plot in favour of the petitioners. The said actions were to be completed within a period of two weeks from the date of the order.

Further, the Court directed that the requisite entries be made in the relevant records within the same two-week period. Holding that the petitioners had been subjected to unnecessary litigation, the Court awarded exemplary damages of ₹1,00,000 to each petitioner, to be paid by HSVP.

Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Aadil Singh Boparai, Advocate; Mr. Gurlabh S. Bhaika Sidhu, Advocate; Mr. S.P. Arora, Advocate; Mr. Vaneet Soni, Advocate
For the Respondent-HSVP: Mr. Deepak Sabherwal, Advocate

Case Title: Parveen Sharan & Others v. Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran & Others
Neutral Citation: 2025:PHHC:042860-DB
Case Numbers: CWP No. 18713 of 2024 (O&M), CWP No. 19084 of 2024 (O&M), CWP No. 20855 of 2024 (O&M), CWP No. 31892 of 2024 (O&M), CWP No. 6966 of 2025 (O&M)
Bench: Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Vikram Aggarwal

[Read/Download order]