Simmi Tangri v. Haryana Shehari Vikas Pradhikaran

CWP-14487-2025 (O&M)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CWP-14487-2025 (O&M) Date of decision :22.07.2025 Simmi Tangri ... Petitioner

Versus

Haryana Shehari Vikas Pradhikaran and others

...Respondents

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA

Present:

Mr. Gaurav Bakshi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Deepak Sabharwal, Advocate for the respondents. **** Anupinder Singh Grewal, J. (Oral) The petitioner is seeking a direction to the respondents to issue the letter of intent to him as he is the successful bidder. 2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was the successful bidder in the auction conducted on 17.01.2023. He had submitted a bid of Rs.1,43,75,500/- but the respondents did not issue the letter of intent to him. 3.

Issue notice to the respondents.

4.

At the asking of the Court, Mr. Deepak Sabharwal, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of the respondents and submits that the respondents had taken a decision to cancel the auction as the reserve price had not been correctly fixed. They re-auctioned the plot on 21.06.2023 and a bid of Rs.1,58,60,500/- was accepted and the letter of intent was issued to the successful bidder, who has not been impleaded in this petition. The entire amount paid by the petitioner has been refunded to him along with the registration amount in the year 2023. Heard.

KUMARI SAPNA 2025.07.24 03.45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgement

CWP-14487-2025 (O&M) 6.

The petitioner is stated to be the successful auction purchaser in the auction conducted on 17.01.2023. The respondents had cancelled the auction and in the auction conducted in June, 2023, the bid of Rs.1,58,60,500/- had been tendered which was confirmed. The letter of intent has already been issued to the successful auction bidder. The amount paid by the petitioner in the first auction had been refunded on 27.03.2023 but he has approached this Court after two years. 7.

In the event of the petitioner being aggrieved by the action of the respondents, he ought to have approached this Court promptly but he has chosen to sleep over his rights for a period of two years. 8.

Consequently, we do not find any merit in this petition which stands dismissed.

9.

Pending miscellaneous application(s) shall also stand disposed of. (ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL) JUDGE (DEEPAK MANCHANDA) 22.07.2025 JUDGE Sapna Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No KUMARI SAPNA 2025.07.24 03.45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgement