The Punjab and Haryana High Court has restrained the IREO Group of companies and its assignee Oberoi Realty from making any further allotments or creating third-party rights in its mega residential-cum-commercial project 'Three Sixty North' in Sector-58, Gurugram, until the Director, Town and Country Planning, Haryana decides a pending representation seeking cancellation of the licence granted for the project. [2025 LiveLaw (PH) 226]

Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri and Justice Sanjiv Berry said, "Considering the magnitude of the project and the fact that the rights of various allottees/prospective allottees are involved, it is further directed that till the the complaint/ Representation...is decided, no further allotment shall be made by the respondent Nos.3 to 14 to any further prospective allotee nor shall any further third-party rights be created by them."

The Court passed the interim directions while disposing of an application filed by Advance India Projects Limited which alleged that IREO Group and Oberoi Realty had acted in contravention of the law.

As per the plea, the license was initially obtained in favour of the IREO Group entities and thereafter, the same was transferred to Oberoi Realty. Petitioner sought stay on Licence, and the subsequent order dated June 17, 2025 approving change of the developer's name in favour of Oberoi Realty.

The dispute concerns 14.816 acres of land in Sector-58, Gurugram, originally covered by three separate licences granted between 2009 and 2012 to the IREO Group of companies (respondents No. 3 to 13).

These licences were later consolidated into a single migrated licence in favour of Oberoi Realty, a challenge to which was earlier filed by the petitioner and withdrawn with liberty to pursue other remedies. The petitioner subsequently filed a representation under Section 8 of the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975, seeking cancellation of the licence, which remains pending before the Director.

Meanwhile, the licence granted to IREO Company on May 12, 2025 was approved for transfer to Oberoi Realty on June 17, 2025 — a development the petitioner challenged in the present writ petition.

Senior counsel for the petitioner argued that the land had been acquired through Foreign Direct Investment, which under FDI policy could only be utilised for development and construction and not as a route for the promoters to exit the project by selling to a third party.

It was contended that Oberoi, in whose favour the licence was granted, was never the "owner" of the land as required under Section 3 of the 1975 Act — the land having already been transferred to respondent No. 14 on May 7, 2024, nearly a year before the licence was granted on May 12, 2025. Since the foundational licence was itself void for want of ownership, its subsequent transfer to Oberoi Realty could not cure the illegality, counsel argued.

It was highlighted that the project, valued at approximately ₹8,000–10,000 crores for its first phase alone, had already seen around 350 units allotted and nearly ₹750 crores collected from allottees, and that permitting the project to continue unchecked pending adjudication of the legality of the licence risked prejudicing a large number of innocent buyers.

Senior counsel for respondents No. 3 to 13 and for respondent No. 14 (IREO Group and Oberoi) jointly opposed interim relief, contending that the petitioner lacked locus standi, its real grievance being confined to a failed Memorandum of Understanding entered into with the IREO Group in 2021, litigation over which — including a suit for specific performance and an FAO before the High Court — had already gone against the petitioner and was not disclosed in the present petition.

It was further submitted that the writ petition, filed a year after withdrawal of the earlier petition without pursuing alternate remedies, was not maintainable, and that any alleged violation of law was in any event compoundable, warranting no interim relief.

Oberoi Realty stated it had invested about ₹500 crores in the project and that halting further progress would cause it irreparable loss. The State, represented by the Additional Advocate General, submitted that the representation under Section 8 was pending and next listed for July 20, 2026, and offered no objection to a timeline being fixed for its disposal after hearing all stakeholders.

The Bench noted that it was undisputed that IREO Company was not the owner of the land on the date the licence was granted, while Oberoi Realty was — a factual position the respondents sought to justify as part of an ongoing process. The Court held that the question of whether the licence and its subsequent transfer complied with Section 3 of the 1975 Act was a matter to be examined by the competent authority, before whom the petitioner's representation was already pending.

Balancing the need to avoid stalling legitimate development against the interests of allottees who had already invested substantial sums, the Court observed that in mega projects involving thousands of crores of rupees, the rights of innocent allottees required protection, and that a balance had to be struck in the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Disposing of the application, the Court directed, the Director, Town and Country Planning shall decide the pending representation on the scheduled date of July 20, 2026, after giving adequate opportunity to all stakeholders, including the petitioner.

If it cannot be decided on that date, the Director shall hear the matter on a day-to-day basis and decide it within a further two weeks, by way of a speaking order dealing with all pleas raised by the parties.

Till the representation is decided, respondents No. 3 to 14 shall not make any further allotments or create any further third-party rights in respect of the project, it added.

Appearances: Mr. R.S. Rai, Mr. Chetan Mittal and Mr. Nalin Kohli, Senior Advocates, Advocates Ritesh Kumar, Rubina Virmani for the petitioner.

Mr. Sandeep Chhabra, Additional A.G. Haryana, for respondent-State. Mr. Gaurav Chopra, Senior Advocate, with others, for respondents No. 3 to 13. Mr. Akshay Bhan and Mr. Aashish Chopra, Senior Advocates, with others, for respondent No. 14.

Case Title: Advance India Projects Limited v. Director, Department of Town Country Planning Haryana and Others

Click here to read order