IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.15686 of 2008 Date of Decision: 20.07.2009 Manish Makkar and another Petitioners Versus Greater Mohali Area Development Authority Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH Present: Ms. Shilpa Malhotra, Advocate for the petitioners Mr.Sanjeev Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr.Shekhar Verma, Advocate for the respondent ….. Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral) Vide advertisement dated 9.5.2008, respondent offered many properties for sale. Terms and conditions for purchase of the properties were mentioned in that advertisement. Clause 4 of the terms and conditions states that layout plans regarding the properties, in question, shall be displayed at the venue of the auction. The petitioners were successful bidders for two plots bearing No.20-C and 21-C in Sector 69, Mohali, for an amount of Rs.1.56 crore and Rs.1.36 crore respectively. Both are the corner plots. Area shown in the advertisement was 46.64 sq.yards. Dispute in this writ petition is regarding leaving of corridor on one side of the booths, in question. So far as corridor to be left on the front side of the booth is concerned, there is no dispute. It is contention of counsel for the petitioners that once the petitioners have purchased area measuring 46.64 sq.yards, they be allowed to construct entire area, leaving corridor on the front side of the booth. Civil Writ Petition No.15686 of 2008 In response to the notice issued, reply has been filed, wherein it has been stated that the layout plan, for the area, was displayed at the spot, when auction was conducted. In the layout plan, for the plots in question, corridor has been proposed on the front side and also towards another side of the plot. Layout plan has been put on record as Annexure R1. Perusal thereof clearly indicates that as per plan, the purchaser has to leave corridors on the front and the corner side. If that is so, the petitioners cannot be allowed to construct the area, which they are supposed to leave under the corridors. In view of above, no case is made out for interference. Dismissed. 20.07.2009 (Jasbir Singh) gk Judge 2