CCI Closes Developers' Case Against Haryana Town-Planning Authorities Over Statutory Development Charges

The Competition Commission of India has closed abuse of dominance complaints filed by real estate developer ILD Housing Projects Private Limited and industry body CREDAI-NCR against Haryana's town planning authorities, holding that competition law does not apply to disputes arising from statutory town-planning and licensing functions.

In an order dated December 16, 2025, a bench led by Chairperson Ravneet Kaur along with members Anil Agarwal, Sweta Kakkad and Deepak Anurag, said the Department of Town and Country Planning, Haryana and the Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran were carrying out duties assigned to them under state law. These functions, the Commission said, are regulatory in nature and not commercial activities.

"On the perusal of the preamble of the HDRUA Act and provisions contained therein, it is amply clear that the OP-1 has been tasked with regulatory and statutory functions of issuance of Licence to Developers and undertake activities, which though economic, are essentially regulatory and statutory in nature," it said. This therefore according to the commission is outside the purview of Competition Law.

The complaints challenged the levy of External Development Charges and Infrastructure Development Charges, along with interest and revision clauses by the Haryana's urban town development authorities. Developers alleged that the charges were imposed in a one-sided manner. They said there was no corresponding obligation on the authorities to complete external infrastructure works within a fixed timeframe. They also argued that licence terms were standardized and non-negotiable. This according to them was abuse of dominance under Section 4(2)(a)(i) of the Act.

The CCI rejected these arguments. It held that town planning, regulation of land use, and issuance of development licenses are statutory functions of the state. These activities do not operate in a competitive market. As a result, they cannot be examined under competition law.

“The Commission is of the opinion that the activities carried on by OP-1 in the present matter are statutory functions, which cannot be a subject matter of examination under the Act,” the order said"

It also relied on earlier High Court and Supreme Court rulings that have upheld the legality of levying such charges. It noted that courts have already held that a developer's liability to pay these charges is independent of the pace of infrastructure development. Re-examining the same issue, it said, would go against settled judicial findings.

On allegations of unfair license conditions, the CCI said the terms flow directly from legislation. Since these conditions are prescribed by law, they cannot be treated as abusive under competition law.

Finding no prima facie case of abuse of dominant position, the Commission closed both cases and dismissed all applications seeking interim relief.