Introduction:

The Supreme Court has taken a serious view of an alleged deviation between the project represented to homebuyers and the manner in which the DLF Primus housing project in Gurugram has actually been developed. In Swarnpreet Kaur & Anr. v. State of Haryana & Others, a Bench comprising Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice R. Mahadevan directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to proceed with a Preliminary Enquiry into issues surrounding the construction and alleged alteration of a 24-metre-wide road shown in the original project plan and brochure. The Court’s order places particular emphasis on the obligation of a developer and public authorities to ensure that a housing project is delivered in accordance with the representations on the basis of which prospective purchasers were induced to invest.

The dispute concerns the DLF Primus project in Gurugram and, more specifically, a road that was represented in the original brochure and plan as passing through the project. According to the material placed before the Supreme Court, the road was intended to form part of the layout and was shown as a 24-metre-wide road extending through the project. However, questions arose regarding whether the road had actually been constructed in the manner represented to the homebuyers.

The issue was not treated by the Court as a mere technical variation in the execution of a large housing project. The Bench emphasized that when consumers purchase residential units on the basis of a project brochure and approved plan, the representations contained therein assume considerable significance. A developer cannot, according to the Court’s approach, represent one form of development to prospective purchasers and subsequently deliver something materially different without lawful justification.

The Supreme Court had earlier entrusted the task of examining the factual position concerning the road to Saurabh Gupta, IPS, of the CBI. Pursuant to the Court’s directions, the CBI officer examined the position on the ground and submitted a Status Report dated August 3, 2026. The report indicated that the 24-metre-wide road did not exist within the project in the manner represented in the original plan. The material before the Court further indicated that substantial portions of the area earmarked for the road were being used for parking, while another portion had been developed as a green patch or green track.

The dimensions of the alleged deviation assumed importance before the Bench. The road was stated to have been earmarked over a stretch of approximately 147 metres. Of that stretch, around 52 metres had reportedly been developed as a green patch, while the remaining portion was being used for parking by residents. The Court noted that approximately 100 metres of the earmarked stretch was consequently being used either as a green area or for parking, meaning that nearly two-thirds of the proposed road stretch was not functioning as the road represented in the original project documents.

The Supreme Court expressed the view that the existing position was not in conformity with the original brochure. The Court recalled that throughout the proceedings it had consistently emphasized that the project, as sold to consumers, was required to be delivered in accordance with the representations made by DLF in the brochure and plan provided to prospective buyers.

The controversy also involves the role of the State of Haryana and its authorities. According to the material considered by the Court, a portion of land measuring approximately 100 metres was required to facilitate the road and connect the project with a 60-metre sector road. The Court expressed dissatisfaction with the steps taken by the State and its officials concerning the acquisition of that portion and the resolution of issues that were allegedly obstructing completion of the project in the manner originally represented.

The Court was particularly concerned that despite repeated opportunities to bring the project into conformity with the original representation, the alleged deviation had not been rectified. It therefore indicated that continued non-compliance could result in appropriate and serious orders at the next stage of the proceedings.

The CBI’s Preliminary Enquiry is significant because the Court is not merely examining the physical construction of the road but has also directed a fact-finding exercise into the circumstances surrounding the alleged deviation. Saurabh Gupta, IPS, informed the Court that he had been granted two months under an earlier order dated July 21 to complete the Preliminary Enquiry and submit his report. Since additional manpower could accelerate the exercise, the Court directed the Director of the CBI to assign two additional Inspectors to assist him.

At the same time, the Supreme Court made it clear that the State authorities could not remain passive. The Bench cautioned that if, by the next date of hearing, the project was not completed in accordance with the representations made in the brochure, it would proceed to pass appropriate orders. The State and its officials were also warned that failure to take necessary steps would result in the Court showing no further indulgence.

The matter has therefore moved beyond an ordinary dispute concerning the execution of a residential project. It now involves judicial scrutiny of the obligations of developers towards homebuyers, the responsibility of regulatory and State authorities to enforce lawful development, and a CBI fact-finding exercise into the circumstances surrounding the alleged deviation.

Arguments of the Parties:

The petitioners’ case, as reflected from the proceedings, was founded upon the fundamental contention that homebuyers were entitled to receive the project in accordance with the representations made to them at the time of purchase. The brochure and project plan were not merely promotional material, according to the petitioners’ position, but documents that informed purchasers about the nature, layout and amenities of the development in which they were investing their money.

The petitioners drew attention to the 24-metre-wide road shown in the original project plan. Their grievance was that the road, as represented, had not been provided in the manner originally contemplated. Instead, significant portions of the area earmarked for the road had allegedly been converted into a green patch or were being used by residents for parking.

The petitioners’ position was strengthened by the subsequent factual verification undertaken at the direction of the Supreme Court. The CBI status report dated August 3, 2026 reportedly confirmed that the road did not exist in the project in the form represented in the original plan. The petitioners could therefore contend that the issue was no longer based merely upon an allegation or difference of interpretation of the brochure; there was material before the Court indicating a substantial physical variation between the represented plan and the existing position.

The petitioners also raised concerns regarding the steps taken by the State authorities to facilitate the construction and connectivity contemplated under the original plan. The acquisition of the approximately 100-metre portion required for connecting the project with the 60-metre sector road had apparently encountered difficulties. The petitioners’ grievance was that the State and its officials had not taken effective measures to remove the impediments despite the matter remaining before the Court.

The broader submission emerging from the petitioners’ case was that homebuyers should not be left to bear the consequences of administrative delays, disputes over land or alterations to a project after they had invested their money on the basis of specific representations. Where the layout of a project is represented in a particular manner, any substantial departure from that representation, particularly in relation to access roads and common areas, has the potential to materially affect the rights and legitimate expectations of purchasers.

The petitioners also sought effective implementation of the directions being issued by the Supreme Court. The repeated references to conformity with the original brochure indicate that their grievance was not limited to obtaining a declaration regarding the road. They sought actual compliance and restoration of the project to the position represented to the consumers.

The respondents, including the State of Haryana and its officials, were required to address the allegations concerning the road, the land required for its completion, and the steps taken to resolve the impediments. The State’s position, as reflected in the proceedings, concerned the difficulties associated with acquisition of the approximately 100-metre portion and the pending issues that stood in the way of completing the road connection.

The existence of such impediments was relevant to the Court’s consideration of the matter. However, the Bench made it clear that the presence of an administrative or legal difficulty could not indefinitely justify non-compliance with the representations made to homebuyers. The State was therefore expected to take effective measures to address the impediments rather than merely explain why the project had not yet been brought into conformity.

The private respondents, including the developer, were also called upon to respond to the allegations and the material placed before the Court. The principal issue requiring examination was whether the existing development could lawfully depart from the project plan and brochure and, if so, whether such departure had been authorized by the competent authorities and was otherwise consistent with law.

The respondents’ position would necessarily have to be considered in light of the fact that the Court had already obtained an independent factual assessment through the CBI officer. The Court was not, at this stage, recording a final finding of criminal or regulatory wrongdoing against any individual or entity. Rather, it was examining whether the project had been executed consistently with the representations made to purchasers and whether the circumstances surrounding the deviation required further investigation.

The Court also required the Additional Advocate General appearing for Haryana to file detailed responses to the affidavits submitted by private parties. The response was directed to disclose the steps being taken generally to ensure that constructions were carried out in accordance with law. This indicates that the Court’s concern extended beyond the immediate dispute over the particular road and encompassed the regulatory responsibility of the State authorities in supervising construction and development.

Another important aspect was the issue of elections to the Residents Welfare Association. The Court noted that pending litigation and unresolved issues concerning the land and road could come in the way of holding such elections. The State authorities were therefore expected to take steps to bring the relevant litigation or impediments to an end so that the residents could have an effective institutional mechanism for managing their common affairs.

The competing positions thus presented the Court with two interconnected questions. The first was whether the actual development of the project conformed to the representations made in the original brochure and plan. The second was whether the developer and the State authorities had taken adequate and lawful steps to ensure completion of the project in accordance with those representations.

The Supreme Court’s intervention demonstrates that these questions could not be addressed simply by treating the deviation as an internal planning matter. Once a project is marketed and sold to consumers on the basis of specific representations, those representations acquire legal significance. At the same time, the Court recognized the need for an objective factual determination before drawing conclusions regarding responsibility, which explains the direction for a Preliminary Enquiry by the CBI.

Court’s Judgment:

The Supreme Court adopted a firm approach towards the alleged deviation in the DLF Primus project and emphasized that a housing project must correspond with what has been represented to purchasers. The Bench comprising Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice R. Mahadevan observed at the outset that the 24-metre-wide road situated in the middle of the project was not in conformity with the original brochure and plan.

The Court’s reasoning rests upon an important principle of consumer protection and public law: representations made to prospective purchasers concerning the development of a housing project cannot be treated as meaningless promotional statements when purchasers have relied upon them while making substantial financial investments. The project must, subject to lawful modifications and approvals, be delivered in accordance with the representations on the basis of which consumers purchased their homes.

The Court specifically compared the original brochure and plan with the CBI officer’s Status Report dated August 3, 2026, including the photographs contained therein. On this comparison, the Bench stated that there was no manner of doubt that the 24-metre-wide road in the middle of the project was not in conformity with the original plan and brochure.

This finding is significant because the Court did not accept the alleged deviation as a minor variation in execution. The dimensions involved indicated a substantial departure. Out of the approximately 147-metre stretch earmarked for the road, nearly 100 metres was either a green patch or being used for parking. The Court noted that this constituted almost two-thirds of the entire stretch.

The Court questioned why the deviation had not been rectified despite repeated opportunities. The observation reflects the Court’s concern that judicial directions should result in actual compliance rather than repeated assurances without corresponding action on the ground. Once the Court had emphasized the necessity of bringing the project into conformity with the original representation, the concerned parties and authorities were expected to take concrete steps towards achieving that objective.

The Court’s approach also places considerable importance on the distinction between an approved or represented project plan and the actual physical development. A housing project is not completed merely because residential structures have been constructed. Roads, access routes and other components forming part of the represented layout can also constitute material aspects of the project.

The Bench was equally critical of the conduct of the State of Haryana and its officials concerning the acquisition of the land required for the road connection. Approximately 100 metres of land was required for connecting the project to the 60-metre sector road. The Court found that the State had not taken sufficiently effective steps to overcome the impediments and resolve pending litigation that could obstruct the completion of the proposed road.

The Court’s observations therefore extend beyond the obligations of a private developer. They recognize that State authorities also have a duty to act effectively when public infrastructure, land acquisition and regulatory approvals form part of the circumstances affecting the implementation of a housing project.

The Court was particularly concerned that unresolved issues were also capable of obstructing elections to the Residents Welfare Association. A functioning residents’ association is important for the management of common areas and collective concerns within a residential development. The Court therefore expected the State authorities to take necessary steps so that pending disputes did not indefinitely prevent the residents from exercising their collective rights.

A major component of the order was the direction concerning the CBI Preliminary Enquiry. The Court had earlier entrusted Saurabh Gupta, IPS, with the task of examining the relevant factual issues. His Status Report dated August 3, 2026 became an important piece of material before the Bench.

The CBI officer informed the Court that, pursuant to the order dated July 21, he had been granted two months to complete the Preliminary Enquiry. He further submitted that additional manpower would enable him to complete the exercise more efficiently. Taking note of this submission, the Supreme Court directed the Director of the CBI to assign two additional Inspectors to assist Gupta.

The direction is significant because it demonstrates that the Court intended the factual inquiry to be completed without unnecessary delay. Rather than allowing an investigation into the circumstances to remain pending because of manpower constraints, the Bench strengthened the investigating team.

At the same time, the direction for a Preliminary Enquiry must be understood in its proper legal context. The Court was ordering a fact-finding exercise into the issues surrounding the project and the alleged deviation. The initiation or continuation of such an enquiry does not, by itself, establish criminal liability or wrongdoing. Any conclusions regarding individual or institutional responsibility would depend upon the material gathered during the enquiry and the further proceedings that may follow.

The Court nevertheless adopted a stern approach towards future compliance. It expressly warned that if, by the next date of hearing, the entire project was not completed in all respects in accordance with the representations made in the brochure, it would proceed to pass appropriate orders.

The warning was directed not only towards the private parties but also towards the State and its officials. The Court made it clear that if the necessary steps were not taken by the next hearing, it would not show further indulgence.

This aspect of the order demonstrates the Court’s insistence upon accountability in the implementation of its directions. Repeated opportunities are meaningful only when they result in measurable progress. Where a Court has identified a discrepancy between what was represented and what was actually delivered, continued inaction can invite stronger judicial intervention.

The Supreme Court also directed the Additional Advocate General for Haryana to file detailed responses to the affidavits submitted by the private parties. The response was required to disclose the steps taken generally to ensure that constructions were being carried out in accordance with law.

This direction has a wider significance. The Court was not concerned solely with resolving a dispute affecting one housing project. By seeking information about the general measures being taken by the State, the Bench indicated its concern regarding the enforcement of construction and development norms more broadly.

The order also reflects the importance of transparency in real estate development. Homebuyers ordinarily make their purchasing decisions after considering project brochures, layout plans, proposed amenities, access roads and other representations. Once possession is delivered, substantial deviations from those representations can materially affect the value and utility of the property purchased.

The Court’s approach is therefore consistent with the broader legal principle that a developer cannot make representations to consumers at the stage of sale and subsequently disregard those representations without lawful authority. The exact legal consequences of a particular deviation would depend upon the facts, applicable approvals and regulatory framework, but the Court has made clear that material deviations cannot simply be ignored.

The mattr also illustrates the importance of regulatory s