Allahabad HC Orders GDA To Allot Plot To Highest Bidder After It Rejected His ₹1.11 Lakh-Per-Sq-Metre Offer Hoping For More

The GDA auctioned Plot No. A-252 on 15 October 2025, with a reserve price of ₹93,000 per sq. m.

Amit Kumar’s bid of ₹1,11,000 per sq. m. was the highest.

The Authority rejected it, stating that the bid was unacceptable, and later explained that it expected a higher price.

The plot had previously been auctioned twice: the highest bids of ₹1,95,000 and ₹1,56,000 per sq. m. were also rejected, on different grounds.

The Authority subsequently re-auctioned the plot, and a bid of ₹2,06,000 per sq. m. was accepted while this writ petition was pending.

The High Court examined the Authority’s original records and found no evidence of fraud, collusion, or other irregularity in the petitioner’s auction.

A highest bidder has no indefeasible right to have a bid accepted; an authority may reject the highest bid or cancel an auction, subject to judicial review of whether the decision rested on relevant considerations, was supported by material, and was non-arbitrary

Under Golden Foods Products India v. State of U.P., 2026 INSC 225, a valid bid above the reserve price cannot be rejected merely because the authority expected a higher bid; rejection must have a rational basis, such as an infirmity affecting the auction

M/s Dhanlaxmi Merchandise Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2026 INSC 1125, was relied on for reviewing the reasonableness and non-arbitrariness of a public authority’s decision

The Court also applied the principle that judgments ordinarily operate retrospectively unless expressly made prospective

The Court also applied the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, by which a transfer during pending litigation is subject to the outcome of that litigation

A subsequent allottee acting in good faith may be entitled to restitution where the allotment is displaced

Although Clause (xi) reserved final approval of the auction to the Vice-Chairman, that discretion remained subject to judicial review.

The Authority’s records showed that it repeatedly rejected bids above the unchanged reserve price in anticipation of a better return, without identifying any defect in the petitioner’s auction or a reasoned basis for rejecting his bid.

The earlier rejected bid of ₹1,95,000 per sq. m. could not rationally serve as the benchmark for rejecting later bids after the Authority itself had declined to accept it.

Applying Golden Foods, the Court held that anticipated future prices alone did not justify cancellation; the process was therefore arbitrary and a colourable exercise of power.

The later allotment had been made during the writ proceedings, with the Authority having notice of the petition, and was subject to lis pendens.

The allottee’s interests could be addressed by refund and interest, so non-impleadment did not require dismissal of the petition.

It set aside the cancellation intimation dated 27 October 2025 and restored the auction held on 15 October 2025 to the petitioner’s highest bid.

The Authority was directed to issue an allotment letter, subject to the petitioner making payments under the bid conditions.

The subsequent auction and allotment were held to have no legal effect; the subsequent allottee was entitled to a refund with 6% interest within one month, rising to 9% in case of default.

The writ petition was allowed, with no order as to costs.