The Allahabad High Court has set aside the Ghaziabad Development Authority’s decision to cancel the highest bid for a residential plot in Kaushambi, holding that a public authority cannot repeatedly reject valid auction bids merely in the hope of obtaining a higher price in future auctions.
A Division Bench of Justice Siddhartha Varma and Justice Kunal Ravi Singh allowed a writ petition filed by Amit Kumar and directed the Authority to restore the auction held on October 15, 2025, and issue an allotment letter in his favour.
Background
The dispute concerned Plot No. A-252, measuring approximately 67.60 square metres, situated in Block-A, Kaushambi Yojana, Ghaziabad. The Ghaziabad Development Authority had fixed its reserve price at ₹93,000 per square metre.
During the auction conducted on October 15, 2025, Amit Kumar emerged as the highest bidder with an offer of ₹1,11,000 per square metre. However, the Authority rejected his bid, stating that the amount was lower than the ₹1,95,000 per square metre received in an earlier auction conducted on July 30, 2025.
The petitioner challenged the cancellation, arguing that the Authority could not reject his highest bid simply because it expected a better price in another auction.
After examining the original records, the Bench found that the Authority had repeatedly cancelled auctions of the same plot. The first auction, which attracted a bid of ₹1,95,000 per square metre, was rejected because the Authority expected an even higher price. A subsequent bid of ₹1,56,000 per square metre was also rejected.
The Court observed that the reserve price remained unchanged at ₹93,000 per square metre throughout these auctions, while the Authority continued to wait for a better offer.
The Bench remarked:
"The Authority has continued to re-auction the plot repeatedly in the hope that they would get the price that could be acceptable to the Authority."
Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Golden Foods Products India v. State of U.P. and Others, the Court emphasised that a valid highest bid above the reserve price cannot be rejected merely because the authority expects a better offer.
The Bench further observed:
"Merely because the Authority conducting the auction expected a higher bid than what the highest bidder had offered cannot be a reason to discard the highest bid."
The Court also found no material indicating fraud, collusion, suppression of facts or any other irregularity in the October 15 auction.
The Authority argued that the petition should be dismissed because the successful bidder in the subsequent auction had not been made a party to the proceedings.
Rejecting this objection, the Court held that the subsequent allotment, made during the pendency of the writ petition, was subject to the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
However, recognising the subsequent allottee's position, the Bench directed the Authority to refund the deposited amount with 6% interest.
The High Court quashed the cancellation communication dated October 27, 2025, along with the cancellation order dated October 24, 2025.
It restored the October 15, 2025 auction in favour of Amit Kumar and directed the Authority to issue an allotment letter, subject to payment under the applicable auction conditions.
The subsequent auction conducted on December 29, 2025, and the allotment letter dated January 19, 2026, were declared legally unsustainable. The refund to the subsequent allottee was directed within one month, failing which interest would increase to 9%.
The writ petition was accordingly allowed, with no order as to costs.
Case Details
Case Title: Amit Kumar v. Ghaziabad Development Authority (GDA) and 2 Others
Case Number: Writ-C No. 44444 of 2025
Judges: Justice Siddhartha Varma and Justice Kunal Ravi Singh
Decision Date: November 3, 2026
