2010 PLP 2532 (YLR)

This order shall dispose of present I.C.A. No.49 of 2010 and a connected I.C.A. No.40 of 2010 filed by a third party intervener interested in the cancellation of the subject auction sale made by LDA in favour of the respondent. A commercial Plot No.22 M Model Town Extension, measuring 20 marlas, received a highest bid of Rs.1.905 million per marla in a public auction held on 28-8-2008. That bid was, however, rejected by LDA and the property went into re-auction. Accordingly, the subject auction dated 15-4-2009 was held in which the said plot received a highest bid of Rs.1.91 million from the respondent. That bid was accepted by the competent authority Additional Director General LDA ("ADG") vide order 22-6-2009 which was communicated to the respondent on 23-6-2009. The balance amount of the bid was deposited by the respondent within the time allowed on 18-8-2009 making a total bid price of Rs.38.20 million. The appellant intervener in the connected appeal wrote to the Director-General, LDA on 13-8-2009 offering a price of Rs.2.1 million per marla for the auctioned property. On 29-8-2009 the Director General LDA ordered the cancellation of the sale made to the respondent No.1 on the ground that the difference between the successful bid by the respondent and the highest bid at the previous auction was only Rs. 5,000 and, therefore, fresh bids should be invited. That order makes reference to the application filed by the intervener. The learned Single Judge vide his impugned judgment dated 20-1-2010 has held that the contract of sale between the LDA and the respondent stood finalized and concluded with full payment of the bid price having been made by the respondent. In the absence of any allegation by LDA of fraud or mala fide by any party to the transaction, there was no ground for the DG, LDA to interfere with the said sale.

2. Before this Court it is common ground that the highest bid by the respondent was accepted by the competent authority, ADG LDA on 22-6-2009 and full bid price was deposited by the respondent. It is also clear that the appellant LDA has not made any allegation of wrong-doing, mala fide conduct or corruption in this case. The likely cause for the impugned order dated 29-8-2009 by the D.G., L.D.A. is the higher offer made by the intervener. In order to appreciate the seriousness of his offer, the Court invited the said intervener, who readily offered to deposit an amount of Rs.15.0 million, as the excess amount above the respondents' highest bid which he was now willing to pay for the auctioned property. The Court's order dated 6-5-2010 passed in the intervener's I.C.A. No. 40 of 2010 allows him to deposit of Rs.15.0 million with the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court by 11-5-2010. Neither on the said date of hearing on 11-5-2010 nor today has the intervener attended or been represented in these proceedings. Also no deposit has been made by him. A fictitious offer without testing his bona fides before the DG LDA seems to have been the basis of the impugned action. The presumed premise of the impugned order has been exposed and has collapsed. We agree with the findings given by the learned Single Judge in his judgment of 20-1-2010. Therefore, we do not see any ground to interfere with the same. Appeal dismissed. H.B.T./L-13/L I.C. Appeal dismissed.