The Supreme Court has made it clear that real estate developers cannot make promises in project brochures and later treat them as mere marketing claims. If buyers are sold a project based on specific plans and facilities, developers are expected to deliver what they have promised.
The court made the observation while hearing a dispute over DLF Home Developers’ The Primus housing project in Sector 82A, Gurugram. The case centres on a 24-metre-wide road shown in the original project plan, which the court found had not been maintained as promised, reported Hindustan Times.
A bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and R Mahadevan said the deviation was “not minor, but substantial”. It warned that if the project was not brought in line with the original brochure and plan, it could pass appropriate orders.
The court was referring to a report prepared by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), which had been asked to conduct a preliminary inquiry into the road and other complaints related to the project.
According to the CBI’s findings, the 24-metre-wide road did not exist across the project in the manner shown in the original plan and brochure.
The road was supposed to run for about 147 metres. However, around 52 metres of this stretch has been developed as a green patch. Another sizeable portion that still looks like a road is being used for parking by residents and visitors.
This means that nearly 100 metres, or about two-thirds of the planned road, is either a green area or being used for parking.
The Supreme Court questioned why the issue had not been fixed despite giving the parties several opportunities.
The bench also stressed that its concern was not limited to the road. It said the larger issue was whether the project being delivered to homebuyers matched the representations made to them when they bought their flats.
The Primus was marketed by DLF as a premium residential project from around 2012. Its promotional material referred to facilities including two 24-metre-wide access roads, banquet facilities, tennis courts and swimming pools.
However, some buyers later alleged that several aspects of the project did not match what had been promised.
The dispute began with complaints filed by five homebuyers before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC). The consumer body delivered its judgment on May 29, 2023. Both the buyers and DLF Home Developers subsequently approached the Supreme Court.
The buyers alleged that the project was effectively landlocked, with agricultural land around it. They also raised concerns about roads, water and electricity infrastructure and questioned how a partial occupation certificate had been granted.
DLF, meanwhile, has maintained that possession was offered with the required water, electricity and other compliances.
The Supreme Court’s latest observations follow an earlier order in February this year, when it found a prima facie “huge mismatch” between statutory requirements and the situation on the ground.
The bench had then said that representations made to prospective buyers “may not have been fully translated into reality”. It also raised a broader concern about what such cases could mean for ordinary homebuyers if similar issues occurred across the organised real estate sector.
The court subsequently directed the CBI to conduct a preliminary fact-finding exercise.
In its latest order, the Supreme Court directed the CBI director to assign two more inspectors to assist Superintendent of Police Saurabh Gupta, who is handling the preliminary inquiry. The matter has been listed for October 12, when the court is expected to await the agency’s final report.
The court also made it clear that the CBI’s inquiry must remain independent and objective and should not be influenced by observations made during the proceedings.