JUDGMENT AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 20.12.2007 (Annexure P-12), whereby the representation submitted by the petitioner in compliance with order dated 04.05.2006 passed by this Court in CWP No. 12624 of 2002 directing the petitioner to file a detailed representation before the Estate Officer for adjustment of the lease rent and proportionate reduction of the amount claimed by the respondents despite not providing the amenities such as roads drainage, street lights etc. from the date of allotment of the plot for constructing a Shop-cum-Office (hereinafter referred to as 'SCO') till the date of grant of possession as also providing of the amenities was declined. Challenge is also to the order passed by the Joint Secretary Finance exercising the powers of Chief Administrator, Union Territory, Chandigarh dated 02.06.2009 (Annexure P-14), vide which the appeal preferred by the petitioner was partly allowed by granting him the benefit of non-charging of ground rent/lease amount from the date of allotment of the plot till the date of grant of possession i.e. 11.12.1998 to 17.01.2000 and declining the benefit of proportionate adjustment of the amount due to non-providing of basic amenities. 2. Briefly the facts are that the petitioner purchased SCO site No. 34, Sector 33-D, Chandigarh in an open auction held on 11.12.1998. The physical possession could not be given to him of the plot because of a mango tree standing on the site. The tree was removed on 11.12.1999 and possession handed thereafter on 17.01.2000 to the petitioner of the plot. The petitioner preferred CWP No. 12624 of 2002, which was dismissed on 13.08.2002. On a Special Leave Petition preferred by the petitioner, the case was remanded back to the High Court vide order dated 28.02.2006 for fresh consideration. This Court disposed of the writ petition vide order dated 04.05.2006 directing the respondents to file a detailed representation before the Assistant Estate Officer within a period of four weeks, on such submission, the Assistant Estate Officer was to examine the representation and pass a detailed speaking order within four months after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner or his counsel and the departmental representative. The review petition preferred by the petitioner in this Court was dismissed and then, he approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, which, vide order dated 26.03.2007, enlarged the time as granted by the High Court to file the representation by one month while dismissing the Special Leave Petition. 3. The petitioner submitted a representation, which was duly considered by the Estate Officer as per the directions of the High Court and declined the same vide order dated 20.12.2007 by observing that the petitioner was only entitled to the relief relating to the ground rent and interest from 19.12.1998 to 19.12.1999, which had already been provided to him on an earlier representation preferred by him. An appeal was preferred against this order which has been partly allowed by granting him the benefit to the extent that the ground rent shall be payable w.e.f. 17.01.2000, which had been earlier granted to him till 19.12.1999. The other claims made by the appellant were rejected leading to the filing of the present writ petition. 4. Counsel for the petitioner contends that it was the requirement of the rules to provide the basic amenities such as roads, sewerage connection, water and electricity connection and street lights etc. by the respondents without which the petitioner could not enjoy the fruits of the property which he had bought in an open auction. He contends that the same having been denied to him in violation to the terms of the sale deed, the present petition deserves to be allowed to the effect that proportionate benefit of adjustment/refund from the date of charging till the date of providing these benefits be granted to the petitioners by the respondents. 5. Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the property having been purchased by the petitioner in an open auction with open eyes and was aware of the fact that the basic amenities were to be still provided, he participated in the auction and, therefore, cannot now claim the said benefits. 5. Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the property having been purchased by the petitioner in an open auction with open eyes and was aware of the fact that the basic amenities were to be still provided, he participated in the auction and, therefore, cannot now claim the said benefits. She further states that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Estate Officer, Chandigarh Administration and another vs. Kuldeep Singh, Civil Appeal No. 6721 of 2010, has, on detailed consideration of the various provisions of the acts and rules governing the auction, held that all facilitates, if not available on the site or providing thereof before the property can be used in accordance with the rules despite giving possession of the same, would not entitle the auction purchaser to claim benefit of refund or non-charging of the lease amount for the said period. She, on this basis, contends that the present petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner and are unable to accept the same in the light of the fact that the petitioner had purchased the property on 99 years lease hold basis at a premium of Rs. 40,10,000/-for running general trade in open auction. The benefit of non-charging of lease rent from the date of auction i.e. 11.12.1998 till the date of delivery of possession i.e. 17.01.2000 has already been given to the petitioner. The petitioner having purchased the property being well aware of the ground realities at the site cannot now turn around and claim a benefit, which he is not entitled to under the rules. In the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of U.T. Chandigarh Administration and another vs. Amarjeet Singh and others, 2009 (4) SCC 660, wherein it has been held after considering various provisions of the Acts, Regulations and Rules applicable that where there is a public auction, without assuring any specific or particular amenities, the prospective purchaser/lessee after having an opportunity of examining the site, would offer a higher amount if all amenities are available but if there are no amenities, or if the site suffers from any disadvantages, the bidder would offer a lesser amount, or may not participate in the auction. Once with open eyes, a person participates in an auction, he cannot thereafter be heard to say that he would not pay the balance of the price/premium or the stipulated interest on the delayed payment, or the ground rent, on the ground that the site suffered from certain disadvantages or on the ground that amenities were not provided. The Honble Supreme Court in the case of Estate Officer, Chandigarh Administration and another vs. Kuldeep Singh (supra) has again while following the judgment in Amarjeet Singh's case (supra) reiterated the same principles. 7. The petitioner thus, cannot be granted the benefits which he is claiming through the present petition. 8. In view of the above, finding no merit in the present petition, the same stands dismissed. Petition dismissed.