Supreme Court Orders CBI Probe Into Homebuyers' Grievances Against DLF Over Gurugram Primus Garden City Project

The Supreme Court recently directed the Central Bureau of Investigation to conduct an inquiry into the development of DLF's “The Primus DLF Garden City” housing project in Sector 82A, Gurugram, observing that there appeared to be a gap between what was promised to homebuyers and what was delivered on the ground.“it transpires that there is a huge mismatch between the requirement(s) of law and what actually may, or rather is alleged, to have happened on the ground. Yet, basis the material already on record, prima facie, it is clear that there were many issues, in respect of the representation made, on behalf of DLF to the prospective buyers. These representations may not have been fully translated into reality”, the Court observed.A bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice R Mahadevan further noted that the role of statutory and regulatory authorities also required examination, as many homebuyers put their entire life savings into purchasing a home.“The other aspect meriting some examination is the role of the authorities, statutory or otherwise, who are regulatory and also meant to function as a safeguard for the interests of the ordinary consumer. We may take judicial notice of the fact that in our nation, there are many who put their entire life-savings into buying one small house/flat of their own, that too at/towards the fag end of their careers or lives. Yet, they are often unable to realise their dreams”, the Court observed.The Court was dealing with a batch of appeals filed by homebuyers challenging decisions of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in their complaints against DLF Home Developers Ltd.The dispute relates to the group housing project launched in 2012. In the lead matter, the appellants had booked an apartment in August 2012. The Apartment Buyer's Agreement fixed February 28, 2016 as the deadline for handing over possession.The homebuyers alleged that DLF represented in its brochure and layout plan that two 24-metre sector roads abutted the project when neither was a sector road. A portion of one road was on private land taken on lease from farmers, and the other road was not constructed. Access could be blocked if the lease ended, they said.They also alleged that although an occupation certificate dated October 7, 2016 was obtained and possession was offered on January 27, 2017, several amenities were incomplete, including internal and external works, roads and club facilities such as swimming pool etc. They challenged the validity of the certificate, and pointed out that water was supplied through tankers while permanent water supply began only on September 4, 2021. Electricity was initially through generators.They further challenged demands towards increased super area, bulk power supply, gas pipeline charges, escalation charges, VAT, service tax and maintenance security, and alleged irregularity in the formation of the condominium association and other conditions imposed at the time of possession.In 2023, the National Commission partly allowed their complaint, holding that portraying private roads as sector roads amounted to an unfair trade practice. It directed the developer to acquire the private land forming part of the access road through the Haryana Urban Development Authority within six months and complete construction of both access roads. The commission also provided for a monthly penalty in case of non-compliance. The homebuyers argued before the Supreme Court that despite NCDRC directions to the developer to acquire the private land through HUDA within six months, it has not been acquired. They submitted that according to HUDA, it cannot be acquired as there is no such policy to acquire private land from a farmer except under the extant TDR policy. Thus, there is no access road to the project.The Supreme Court observed that what had surfaced might not be an isolated instance, and a serious view was required to be taken of the situation. “It may, tentatively put, just be the tip of the proverbial iceberg. We are hard-pressed to reckon that it may be only a one-off incident. We are more concerned for the reason that in the organised real estate sector, such instances occur, we can well imagine the plight of the ordinary consumers. A pensive consideration of the totality of factors at play has compelled us to take a very strict view of the matter”, the Court said.Thus, the Court directed the CBI to conduct an inquiry. The Court asked counsels representing the complainant homebuyers to meet the CBI Director and hand over all relevant materials along with a chronological synopsis. The CBI may seek further information if required and will issue notice to the developer and concerned authorities and hear their version before proceeding, the court said.The Court directed all persons and authorities concerned to cooperate with CBI. The Director may constitute a dedicated team for the purpose, which will function independently under his supervision. The CBI...

Supreme Court Orders CBI Probe Into Homebuyers' Grievances Against DLF Over Gurugram Primus Garden City Project

Amisha Shrivastava

The Court observed that there appeared to be a "huge mismatch" between the promises and the reality.

Tags