ISLAMABAD: Setting a legal precedent to end frivolous litigation and restraining orders that deprive CDA of auctioning plots worth billions of rupees, the Islamabad High Court (IHC) has ruled that mere participation would not qualify a bidder to challenge the entire process of selling off government land.
Justice Raja Inaam Ameen Minahs issued the judgement on an appeal filed by Areeja Sidiqua against the CDA regarding cancellation of the bid for a commercial plot in F-11 Markaz.
The dispute dated back to 2004 when the appellant participated in an open auction of two commercial plots (No 23 and 24). She was declared the successful bidder for both the plots with a total sale consideration of about Rs867 million.
However, due to difficulties in transferring funds from abroad following the post-9/11 international situation, the appellant failed to deposit 25pc of the bid amount within the stipulated 24-hour period as required by the auction terms.
Being highest bidder does not confer any vested rights unless bid is accepted by competent authority, says court order
The CDA canceled the bid for both the plots and forfeited the token money of Rs4 million paid by the appellant.
Despite repeated requests for extension and reconsideration, the CDA only restored the bid for one of the plots after the appellant deposited the full payment, delayed charges and restoration fees.
However, the request for the other plot was rejected by the CDA board, leading the appellant to file a lawsuit in 2015.
After hearing arguments from both the sides and examining evidence, the IHC ruled that the appellant had no cause of action or locus standi to file the suit.
The court emphasised that being the highest bidder in an auction does not confer any vested rights unless the
bid is formally accepted by the competent authority - in this case, the CDA board.
The court cited several Supreme Court rulings, including Munshi Mohammad vs. Faizanul Haq and Babu Pervaiz Qureshi vs. Settlement Commissioner which established that a bid at an auction subject to confirmation does not create any contractual rights until the bid is confirmed.
The court also noted that a suit for declaration under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act 1877 can only be filed for pre-existing rights which the appellant did not possess in this case.
Justice Minhas noted that the appellant failed to deposit 25pc of the bid amount within 24 hours as required by the auction terms, leading to the automatic cancellation of the bid and forfeiture of the token money. The judge ruled that the appellant did not acquire any legal rights to Plot No 24 as the bid was never confirmed by the CDA board.
The court held that the suit for declaration was not maintainable as the appellant had no pre-existing rights to the plot.
The IHC dismissed the appeal, stating that the appellant’s failure to comply with the auction terms and the lack of confirmation by the CDA board meant she had no legal grounds to challenge the cancellation of the bid for Plot No 24.
The court’s decision reaffirms the principle that participation in an auction does not guarantee any rights unless the bid is formally accepted by the competent authority.
Published in Dawn, March 18th, 2025
