The Punjab and Haryana High Court has issued interim directions restraining developers of a 14.816-acre project in Gurugram's Sector 58 from making any fresh allotments or creating further third-party rights until the Haryana Director, Town and Country Planning (DTCP) decides a pending complaint challenging the project's licence. The order aims to balance the need for development with the protection of buyer interests in large real estate projects.
Court's Balancing Act
The Bench observed, "We are conscious of the fact that whenever development work is to be undertaken either by the State or its instrumentalities or even by the private developers in accordance with law, the same should not be stalled in normal course because that may hamper the development process." The court added, "This Court is also conscious of the fact that the Court cannot close its eyes to the fact that in the cases of mega projects where thousands of crores of rupees are involved and innocent allottees are sometimes also effected, who had given money to the developers, thus, their rights are also required to be protected. In other words, a balance is required to be maintained by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India."
Background of the Dispute
The controversy involves 14.816 acres in Sector 58, Gurugram. Initially, three separate licences were issued for different parcels of land in favour of respondents comprising the IREO group of companies. Subsequently, one respondent applied for a consolidated licence to migrate the three licences into one. The petitioner opposed this migration by filing a representation before the DTCP Director, which was rejected on March 1, 2024. The petitioner challenged that order in the High Court but withdrew the petition on May 16, 2025, with liberty to avail other remedies. The present writ petition challenges both the grant of the consolidated licence and its subsequent transfer to another respondent via an order dated June 17, 2025.
Arguments by the Petitioner
The petitioner, represented by senior advocates R.S. Rai, Chetan Mittal, and Nalin Kohli, along with counsel Ritesh Kumar, Rubina Virmani, Shubham Madaan, Abhijeet Chaudhary, Anshul Malik, and Sonam Sharma, argued that the licence was granted in violation of Section 3 of the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975, which permits grant of a licence only to the owner of land with clear title. The petitioner further contended that the land had already been transferred to another respondent on May 7, 2024, meaning the applicant for the consolidated licence was not the owner at the relevant time.
High Court's Directive
After considering the rival submissions, the High Court held that the legality of the licence and its amendment dated June 17, 2025, should first be examined by the competent statutory authority. The court stated, "Considering the rival contentions, we are of the considered opinion that this aspect as to whether the licence along with its amendment, which has been made vide order June 17, 2025, is in accordance with law or not, has to be considered and decided by the competent authority, who is the Director of Town and Country Planning." Taking note of the State's submission that the pending complaint would be decided in accordance with law after giving adequate opportunity to all stakeholders, the High Court directed the DTCP Director to decide the complaint by July 20, 2026. If not decided by that date, the authority must hear it on a day-to-day basis and conclude it within two weeks. The court further directed that all pleas raised by the parties must be specifically considered and decided through a categorical and reasoned speaking order, which shall be communicated to all concerned.
Interim Restraint Order
Pending the DTCP's decision, the High Court ordered: "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 complaint/representation is decided, no further allotment shall be made by the respondents to any further prospective allottee nor shall any further third-party rights be created by them." This interim relief aims to protect the interests of buyers while the statutory authority examines the validity of the licence.
