MOHINDER PAL, J. - (1.) THE plaintiff is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the first Appellate Court, whereby the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court was set aside and the suit filed by the plaintiff for declaration with consequential relief of mandatory and permanent injunction in respect of commercial tower situated in Sector 29, Urban Estate, Gurgaon, measuring 9.527 acres (hereinafter referred to as 'the suit property') was dismissed.
(2.) THE Haryana Urban Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'HUDA') issued advertisements in various Newspapers whereby 21 sites, including the suit property, were sought to be auctioned. The property in suit was proposed to be auctioned on 24.5.2004. The auction was held under the chairmanship of the Administrator, HUDA. The reserved price of the property in suit was approved by the Chief Administrator, HUDA. As per the terms and conditions of the auction, 10 per cent of the bid amount was to be tendered on the spot at the fall of hammer either in cash or by way of Bank Draft in favour of Estate Officer, HUDA, Gurgaon, while another 15 per cent of the money was to be deposited within 30 days from the date of issue of the allotment letter by way of Bank Draft and balance 75 per cent of bid amount was to be paid within 60 days from the date of issuance of allotment letter. Reserved price of the suit property was fixed by the HUDA as Rs. 106.65 crores. Various bidders, after completing the necessary formalities, participated in the auction in respect of the suit property. The plaintiff emerged as the highest bidder of suit property at bid amount of Rs. 111.75 crores. The offer of the plaintiff was accepted and an amount of Rs. 11,17,50,000/- (being 10 per cent of the bid amount) was accepted from the plaintiff. However, the officials of HUDA did not issue formal allotment letter to the plaintiff in spite of the repeated requests. On the contrary, the HUDA issued memorandum bearing No.1126 dated 24.9.2004 to the plaintiff purporting to refund the amount deposited by the plaintiff during the course of auction by stating that bid of the plaintiff had been rejected. According to the plaintiff, the said memo is illegal, null and void as the same was issued by the Administrator, HUDA, Gurgaon, who was not competent to do so as per Regulation 6 of Haryana Urban Development (Disposal of Land and Buildings) Regulations, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Regulations'), which authorizes only the Chief Administrator, HUDA, Panchkula (defendant-respondent No.1) to accept or reject the bid. It has been asserted by the plaintiff that it has been victimized at the behest and instance of rivals in the real estate industry and there was no material available with the defendants on the basis of which they could arrive at a conclusion that the auction of the suit property was made at a lower rate and that the same would fetch a higher price in case of re-auction. The bid of the plaintiff was well above the reserved price of the suit property. The plaintiff, accordingly, filed the instant suit praying that memorandum No.1126 dated 24.9.2004 issued by the Estate Officer, HUDA, Gurgaon (defendant-respondent No.3) rejecting the bid of the plaintiff may be declared null and void, plaintiff may be declared successful bidder of suit property and defendants may be directed to issue formal letter of allotment in respect of the suit property in favour of the plaintiff, it being the highest bidder. It was further prayed that a decree for permanent injunction may also be passed in favour of the plaintiff and defendants may be restrained from re-auctioning the suit property and from creating any third party interest in the same. In the reply filed by the defendants, it was admitted that the plaintiff was the highest bidder in respect of the suit property at a price more than the reserved price. However, it was pleaded that the auction in question was subject to provisions of Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 (for short 'the Act') and the Bye-laws framed thereunder. It was further averred that the bid of the plaintiff was not accepted because the price fetched by auction in question was not in consonance with the price fetched in respect of similar properties in other Urban Estates like Faridabad and Panchkula etc. Further, the price received qua the suit property was also not on the rising trend as per the prevalent market price of similarly situated properties in Gurgaon and was on the lower side as compared to the prices fetched in Panchkula, Faridabad and Panipat. Therefore, the competent authority, after considering the individual reports / comments of the members of the Auction Committee, had decided to reject the bid of the plaintiff and had informed it accordingly vide memo No.1126 dated 24.09.2004 and had also refunded the amount of Rs. 11,17,50,000/- vide cheque No.636316 dated 24.09.2004.
(3.) IN the replication filed by the plaintiff, the averments made in the written statement were controverted and those made in the plaint were reiterated.;