The Supreme Court has made it clear that a real estate project sold to homebuyers must be built and handed over exactly as it was shown in the brochure and layout plan. In an order dated 18 August 2026, a bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice R. Mahadevan recorded 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 observation came in a batch of connected civil appeals and a transfer petition involving DLF Home Developers Ltd. and several buyers of the DLF Primus project in Gurugram, including Swarnpreet Kaur, Rohit Bhayana, Mayank Kumar, L.K. Dhamija and Ranjana Bhatia. The State of Haryana is also before the Court.
The immediate trigger was a CBI status report dated 3 August 2026, submitted by Superintendent of Police Saurabh Gupta after the Court’s earlier direction of 21 July 2026. The exercise was a fact-finding check on a 24-metre-wide road that was to cut across the entire Primus project.
The Court recorded that there is no dispute on the material placed before it. Maps and photographs show that the 24-metre road does not exist as a through road inside the project. Portions of it are being used for parking; other portions have been developed as a green track.
The comparison with the original brochure, the Court said, “leaves no manner of doubt” that the road in the middle of the project is not in conformity with what was promised. The deviation is not minor. Of the 147-metre stretch earmarked for the 24-metre road, about 52 metres has been turned into a green patch. Another large stretch, almost of similar length, still looks like a road surface but is used for parking by residents and visitors. Roughly 100 metres — almost two-thirds of the stretch — is therefore either a green patch or parking.
The bench said it was “at a loss to understand” why, despite repeated opportunities given to bring the project in line with the brochure, the deviation had still not been corrected.
On fire safety, the Court noted the Fire Department’s stand that the project meets the prescribed standards. One of the respondents was also heard in person through virtual mode.
The Court was equally critical of the State of Haryana and its officials. It recorded dissatisfaction on two counts: first, the failure to acquire the approximately 100-metre stretch of land needed so that the 24-metre road can connect the project to the 60-metre Sector Road; second, the failure to take effective steps to end pending litigation and other impediments so that elections to the Residents Welfare Association can be held.
On the CBI side, SP Gupta pointed to the two-month time already granted for a Preliminary Enquiry and sought additional manpower. The Court asked the Director, CBI, to assign two more Inspectors to assist him. It also made it clear that the CBI must complete the enquiry objectively and independently and must not be influenced by any observations made during the hearings. Those observations, the Court said, were only meant to underline the seriousness of the issues. The 3 August status report is to be supplied to all parties.
The matters have been listed on 12 October 2026 at 3.00 p.m. The Court described the adjournment as an “extraordinary indulgence.”
Two warnings followed. If by the next date the entire project is not completed in all respects in accordance with the representations made in the brochure, the Court “shall proceed to pass appropriate orders.” The State and its officials were separately cautioned that if they do not take the necessary steps by then, the Court will show no further indulgence.
In the meantime, Senior Additional Advocate General Lokesh Sinhal and the concerned respondents have been directed to file detailed replies to the affidavits of the private parties. Those replies must also disclose the steps being taken to ensure that all constructions hereafter are carried out strictly in accordance with the relevant statutes.
For homebuyers, the order does two things at once. It treats the brochure and the approved plan as the binding standard of what was sold, not as a marketing document that can be altered after money has been taken. And it has put both the developer and the State on a short clock: 12 October 2026. Whether DLF restores the 24-metre road as shown to buyers, and whether Haryana completes the connecting acquisition and clears the way for RWA elections, will be tested on that date.
The case remains pending. The present order is a record of proceedings, not a final judgment. Its language, however, is unambiguous: what was shown in the brochure is what must be delivered.
