The bench of Justice Saral Srivastava and Justice Sudhanshu Chauhan appointed advocates Sri Sanjay Kumar Om and Sri Prakhar Kumar Srivastava as Advocate Commissioners to visit the site and provide the correct factual position regarding position of the project and the possession of flats by the flatowners.

Petitioners, flatonwers of Gulmohar Greens in Ghaziabad, had approached the High Court challenging the compounding order passed by the Ghaziabad Development Authority. As per original layout plan, total 35 towers were proposed to be constructed having 904 dwelling units. However, only 34 towers were built which was not as per the original approved plan.

Thereafter, the promoter of the company had applied for 1st compounding to the original sanctioned map and the same was accorded on 15.11.2011. Promoter applied for second compounding which was also allowed. It was pleaded that by compounding additional dwelling units were proposed to be added which reduced the original common area. Violation of U.P. Apartment (Promotion of Construction, Ownership and Maintenance) Act, 2010 was pleaded by the Flat owners.

On an earlier date, the Court noted,

“In the instant case it is undisputed that till date the builder-respondent No.3 has not yet obtained the completion certificate, yet the possession of the flats have been delivered which is in fragrant violation of Section 4 (5) of the Uttar Pradesh Apartment (Promotion of Construction, Ownership and Maintenance) Act, 2010 (for short 'the Act, 2010'). The identical provision i.e. Section 15-A is also in the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973..”

The Court observed that the builder had executed possession of the flats without obtaining completion certificate. It noted the Authority's fault in letting the builder handover possession to flat buyers without obtaining completion certificate.

“If the respondent no.2-authority had, in fact, raised objections regarding the issuance of the completion certificate and an FIR had also been lodged against the builder, it requires explanation as to how possession could thereafter have been permitted to be handed over to the purchasers,” the Court questioned.

Thereafter, Vice Chairman, Ghaziabad Development Authority and Principal Secretary, Housing and Town Planning, Lucknow, U.P. were summoned by the Court to answer the aforesaid question. The Court noted that though their affidavits disclosed that notices were issued to the builder, no explanation was offered as to why no effective action was taken against the builder.

“In the instant case, the petitioners had purchased the flats in the year 2012 and were delivered possession thereof after execution of the sale deeds, admittedly without any completion certificate having been obtained. This Court further fails to understand that when the respondent concerned had not adhered to the statutory requirement of obtaining a completion certificate and the said fact was within the knowledge of the concerned authorities, how a fresh compounding map was subsequently sanctioned on 13.01.2015 and 18.12.2024.”

Petitioners filed a supplementary affidavit stating that the builder had raised additional floors which was against the sanctioned map and in violation of the Act. However, this fact was disputed by the respondents. Accordingly, the Court appointed Advocate Commissioners to verify and ascertain the factual position on ground.

The case is next listed on 30^th September 2026.