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.

Also Read: DLF Posts ₹1,171 Crore Profit in Q2FY26; Strong Sales and Healthy Cash Flows Highlight Resilient Growth

The post Supreme Court: DLF Must Deliver Projects Strictly as Shown in Brochures appeared first on Square Feat India.

By Varun Singh

A developer was asked by MahaRERA to to refund the entire amount paid by the homebuyer for delay in handing over possession of the flat.

Homebuyer Violet Justin Arokiaswamy approached MAhaRERA against developer Unique Multicon India Pvt. Ltd seeking directions from MahaRERA to the developer to refund/repay the advance amount paid along with interest under the provisions of section 18 of the Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016.

The project in concern here is “Palazzo Greens” situated at Pune, The homebuyer was also seeking compensation for breach of contract by the developer.

The homebuyer complained that she entered into a registered agreement to sale with the promoter on January 7, 2016, in respect of the said flat in the respondent’s project and paid booking amount of Rs 1 lakh. Thereafter she paid further an amount of Rs.9.54 lakh to the builder, for which the developer has duly issued the payment receipts.

According to the said agreement clause number 14 the builder was liable to handover possession of the said flat to her within a period of 36 months from the date of execution of agreement with grace period of 6 months, which ended on January 7, 2019, and still there is no substantial development of the said project and the promoter allegedly promised to deliver the possession of flat by January 7, 2019. Further there was no further extension of date by 6 months mutually agreed which would still end on July 7, 2019.

The homebuyer didn’t wish to continue in the project and claims refund of amount paid along with interest since the promoter has failed to handover timely possession of flat due to slow progress of the project and she seeks refund on the grounds of delay.

The homebuyer stated to MahaRERA that she has always been ready and willing to perform her part of contract but promoter has failed to fulfil its promise.

The homebuyer claims that the developer, has also failed to intimate the progress of project and demand the consideration i.e. slab-wise payment and therefore the complainant claims refund of the amount paid along with interest and compensation as per provisions of RERA.

MahaRERA also noted that, the developer, didn’t bother to file its reply to this complaint, though the complaint is visible to the developer in its project web-page.

During the course of hearing, the developer was specifically directed by MahaRERA, to upload its reply in digital form by evening of May 3, 2021. However, the developer again failed to comply with the directions. “It shows that the respondent is not willing to contest this complaint. Hence, the MahaRERA has no other alternative but to proceed with the matter ex-parte against the respondent on merits,” noted Dr Vijay Satbir Singh, Member- I, MahaRERA.

Further from the webpage information uploaded on MahaRERA website by the developer, it is seen that the respondent has registered two wings in this project viz wing A and B and it has obtained part completion certificate to wing A on 29-07-2020.

However no completion certificate has been obtained for the building in which the complainant’s flat is situated nor any form 4 is uploaded on MahaRERA website. It shows the project is still incomplete and prima facie the developer has violated the provision of section 18 of the RERA.

Singh in the order said, “In view of above facts (delay) and discussion, the respondent is directed to refund the entire amount paid by the complainant towards the consideration of the said flat along with interest at the rate of SBI’s Highest Marginal Cost Lending Rate (MCLR) plus 2% as prescribed under the provisions of section-18 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 and the Rules made there under from the date of payment till the actual realisation of the said amount to the complainant.”

Also Read: Builder Takes MHADA To MahaRERA, Gets No Relief

The post Delay in Possession, Builder to refund entire amount appeared first on Square Feat India.

By Varun Singh

Water is the most essential aspect of a human life. A home buyer told MahaRERA that he didn’t take possession of the flat because the building doesn’t have a proper water supply.

The building received part Occupation Certificate (OC), the homebuyer was asked to take possession of the flat too by the developer. But the homebuyer refused.

The homebuyer stated that the builder in the part OC has mentioned that, he shall take care of the water supply till the water supply form Municipal Corporation isn’t improved.

The homebuyer further mentioned that, many who have taken possession are facing inconvenience because the water supply is not proper.

MahaRERA took the view that it was the duty of the builder to provide adequate water supply to the project, till water supply from the Municipal Corporation doesn’t improve.

Homebuyer Sudhir Jadhav approached MahaRERA against Nirmal Lifestyle Kalyan Pvt Ltd, for the project Spirit in Kalyan Dombivali Municipal Corporation (KDMC).

Jadhav claimed that he was promised a home as per agreement in July 2016 with a grace period of six months (January 31, 2017).

Jadhav asked for interest on his investment on account of delay in possession by the developer.

The developer claimed that Bombay HC, in a PIL had restrained KDMC, between April 2015 to April 2016 from approving any project.

This delayed the project by 19 months, which the builder claimed to be beyond his control. The builder also wanted the authority to consider the revised date of possession mentioned on the portal.

MahaRERA member B D Kapadnis held, that the builder was bound to handover possession as per the date mentioned in the agreement. He stated that RERA doesn’t contemplate re-writing of agreement.

Meanwhile, the builder received the part OC for the building in August 2019 and asked Jadhav to take possession of the flat via an email dated October 11, 2019.

It is here, that Jadhav raised the issue of no proper water supply and Kapadnis reminded the developer his duty.

Kapadnis noted that it was the duty of the builder to provide adequate water for the project, till supply from Municipal Corporation doesn’t improve.

The builder was also reminded his duty of handing over possession on time. MahaRERA ordered the builder to pay interest to Jadhav from February 1, 2017 till October 11, 2019 at 9% per annum for delay in possession.

Once again in the order the builder was reminded his duty for providing water till situation from corporation improves.

Jadhav had even raised an issue of car parking not being proper to park his car, the builder had claimed the car park was as per specifications.

MahaRERA asked the builder to provide a covered car parking to homebuyer where the car can be conveniently parked.

Builder was also asked to pay Rs 20,000 to Jadhav towards cost of the complaint.

Builder Sells SoBO Flat At Less, For Want Of Liquidity

The post Duty Of Builder To Provide Adequate Water To Project appeared first on Square Feat India.