Supreme Court orders CBI probe into DLF’s The Primus Garden City project in Gurugram

The Supreme Court has ordered a probe by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) into alleged irregularities surrounding DLF’s residential project “The Primus DLF Garden City” in Gurugram, observing that the issues flagged may be “just the tip of the proverbial iceberg.”[Swarnpreet Kaur & Anr. v. DLF Home Developers Ltd]

In an order passed on February 25, a Bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice R Mahadevan that the the issues flagged by homebuyers (petitioners) may be “just the tip of the proverbial iceberg"

“We have bestowed anxious thought to what has emerged. It may, tentatively put, just be the tip of the proverbial iceberg. We are hard-pressed to reckon that it may be only a one-off incident. We are more concerned for the reason that in the organised real estate sector, such instances occur, we can well imagine the plight of the ordinary consumers,” the Court said.

Hence, it directed the CBI to set up a dedicated team to carry out an independent probe under the supervision of its Director. It also asked all authorities to cooperate fully and directed the agency to place its findings before it by April 25, 2026.

The Court made it clear that the CBI team must function “independently of any fetter” as officers of the Court, and that the time spent on the inquiry would be treated as full-time duty. It also requested Additional Solicitor General SV Raju to assist the Court.

“We make it clear that any person or authority, whosoever required, shall assist the CBI,” the Court said.

The directions were passed while hearing a batch of appeals filed by homebuyers against DLF Home Developers Ltd. with respect to an order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC).

The controversy traces back to the development of the group housing project at Sector 82A, Gurugram.

In May 2012, DLF launched a marketing campaign for the project as a premium residential complex. It highlighted two 24 metre wide sector access roads as a key feature.

Relying on these assurances, the homebuyers booked their apartments in August 2012. An apartment buyer’s agreement was signed in December 2012, promising possession by February 28, 2016. By then, the buyers had paid nearly 95 percent of the total cost.

According to the homebuyers, the project was not completed by the promised date.

A Partial Occupation Certificate (POC) was issued on October 7, 2016, but the buyers alleged that there were no permanent water or electricity connections and that the infrastructure remained incomplete. It was also alleged that one of the promised 24-metre access roads did not exist.

The buyers approached the NCDRC in 2017. In 2023, the NCDRC partly allowed the complaint, recording findings of deficiency of service and unfair trade practice.

The homebuyers subsequently approached the Supreme Court, alleging that the developer had failed to comply with the NCDRC’s directions.

During the hearing, documents and photographs were shown to the Court.

The Bench said there appeared to be a “huge mismatch” between what the law required and what was alleged to have happened on the ground.

“From the afore-stated, it transpires that there is a huge mismatch between the requirement(s) of law and what actually may, or rather is alleged, to have happened on the ground. Yet, basis the material already on record, prima facie, it is clear that there were many issues, in respect of the representation made, on behalf of DLF to the prospective buyers. These representations may not have been fully translated into reality,” the top court said.

The Court also flagged concerns regarding the role of statutory and regulatory authorities meant to safeguard consumer interests.

“We may take judicial notice of the fact that in our nation, there are many who put their entire life-savings into buying one small house/flat of their own, that too at/towards the fag end of their careers or lives. Yet, they are often unable to realise their dreams,” the top court remarked.

The matter will now be heard next on April 28.

Senior Advocate Senthil Jagadeesan with advocates Suriti Chowdhary, Abiha Zaidi, Pritam Raman Giriya, Arushi, Tanya Sharma, Punit Manoj Agarwal, Bhumitra Dubey, Ashish Bainsla appeared for the appellants.

Senior Advocate Pinaki Misra and Huzefa Ahmadi with advocates Ruby Singh Ahuja, Seema Sundd, Pravin Bahadur, Jappanpreet Hora, Megha Dugar, Amit Agarwal, Aditya Singh and Snehil Srivastava, Vedant Singh Chaudhary appeared for DLF Home Developers Ltd.

Senior  Additional Advocate General Lokesh Sinhal with advocates Rahul Khurana, Nikunj Gupta, Sarthak Arya, Yashwir Singh Hooda, Yuvika Sharma and Bhavya Singhla appeared for the State of Haryana.

Additional Advocate General Shekhar Raj Sharma with advocates Akshay Amritanshu, Nidhi Narwal, Srishti Jain, Sarthak Srivastava, Mayur Goyal and Sudhindra Tripathi appeared for Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran.

Additional Advocate General Shekhar Raj Sharma with advocates Samar Vijay Singh, Nidhi Narwal, Srishti Jain, Sabarni Som, Aman Dev Sharma, Gaj Singh and Keshav Mittal appeared for Municipal Corporation of Gurugram.

Senior Advocate Vipin Sanghi with advocate Rusheet Saluja for M/s Sarc Legal appeared for Primus Resident Condominium Association.

Additional Solicitor General SV Raju with advocate Himanshu Satija appeared for the Union of India.

[Read Order]