NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has come down heavily on DLF Home Developers Ltd.and the State of Haryana over the continued deviation from the approved brochure/plan in the DLF Primus project in Gurugram, particularly concerning a 24-metre-wide road that was to cut across the project but has instead been partly converted into a green patch and partly used for parking.
A Bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and R. Mahadevan was considering a batch of appeals arising out of long-running consumer litigation between homebuyers and DLF, in the course of which the Court had earlier directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to conduct a fact-finding exercise into whether the 24-metre road was being maintained as represented or whether its character had been altered.
The Bench noted that a Status Report dated 03.08.2026 had been filed by Mr. Saurabh Gupta, IPS, Superintendent of Police, CBI, who had been entrusted with the exercise pursuant to the Court's order dated 21.07.2026. On examining the maps and photographs placed on record, the Court found no dispute that the 24-metre-wide road does not exist as such within the project, with portions instead developed as parking or converted into a green track.
“We pause here to indicate that from the very beginning, this Court has been emphasizing that the project, as sold to the consumers, was required to be delivered/constructed strictly in accordance with the representations made in the brochure/plan provided by DLF to the prospective buyers/consumers... The deviation is not minor but substantial, inasmuch as, out of the 147-metre stretch earmarked for the 24-metre-wide road, a stretch of about 52 metres has been developed as a green patch, while another substantial area... is being used for parking by the residents and visitors. Thus, out of the said 147-metre stretch, approximately 100 metres is either a green patch or is being used for parking, constituting almost two-thirds of the entire stretch,” the Court observed.
The Court expressed that it was “at a loss to understand” as to why, despite repeated opportunities granted to bring the project into conformity with the brochure, the deviation had still not been rectified. It was, however, noted that the Fire Department had reported that the project met the prescribed fire safety standards.
The Bench also heard one of the respondents, who joined the proceedings in person through virtual mode. On the CBI's request for additional manpower to expedite the Preliminary Enquiry (PE), the Court directed the Director, CBI to assign two additional Inspectors to assist the investigating officer in completing the exercise, and adjourned the matter to await the final report.
Recording its dissatisfaction with the conduct of the State of Haryana and its officials, the Court flagged the state's failure both in acquiring the roughly 100-metre stretch of land needed to connect the project to the 60-metre Sector Road, and in resolving pending litigation obstructing elections to the project's Residents Welfare Association.
Terming its continued leniency an “extraordinary indulgence,” the Court listed the matters next on 12 October 2026, and made it clear that if the project is not brought into full conformity with the brochure by then, or if the State fails to take the necessary steps, it would “not show any further indulgence” and would proceed to pass appropriate orders.
The Court directed Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Senior Additional Advocate General for Haryana, along with the concerned respondents, to file detailed responses disclosing the steps taken to ensure that future construction complies strictly with the relevant statutes.
It further clarified that the CBI's PE “shall not be influenced or prejudiced” by any observations made during the proceedings, which were intended only to sensitise the parties to the seriousness of the issues involved, and directed that the enquiry be conducted objectively and independently.
Appearances:
For the Appellant(s): Mr. Senthil Jagadeesan, Sr. Adv., Ms. Suriti Chowdhary, AoR, with Ms. Niharika S, Ms. Arushi and Ms. Tanya Sharma, Advs.; Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Sr. Adv., and Mr. Pinaki Misra, Sr. Adv., instructed by M/S. Karanjawala & Co., AoR.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Himanshu Satija, AoR, for DLF Home Developers Ltd.; Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Sr. A.A.G., with Mr. Rahul Khurana, AoR, for the State of Haryana; Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General (NP), with Mr. Akshay Amritanshu, AoR, appeared for the Union; Mr. Rakesh Khanna, Sr. Adv., instructed by M/s Sarc Legal, AoR; Mr. Suryaprakash V. Raju, A.S.G., with Mr. Shreekant Neelappa Terdal, AoR, and Mr. Akash Chatterjee, AoR, also appeared for the respondents; one of the respondents appeared in person through virtual mode.
Case Title: Swarnpreet Kaur & Anr. v. DLF Home Developers Ltd. & Ors. and connected matters, Civil Appeal No. 8049/2023 (with connected appeals and transfer petition)
