Pranav B Prem

The Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Gurugram, has refused to grant relief to complainants Priyanka Batra and her husband Vivek Batra, whose plot documents were seized by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), Anti-Corruption Branch–III, New Delhi. A single-member Bench of Ashok Sangwan (Member) dismissed their complaints as not maintainable, holding that the matter is already pending before another forum and directing the complainants to first obtain a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the CBI.

Also Read: Chandigarh State Commission Holds Catalyst Trusteeship And Credit Rating Agencies Liable For Failing To Safeguard DHFL Debenture Holders

Background Facts

The complainants had booked residential plots in the project “DLF Garden City” at Sectors 91 and 92, Gurugram, for a basic sale price of ₹40,93,945. A Plot Buyer’s Agreement was executed on 15 May 2014, under which the builder, DLF, was required to complete construction and hand over possession within 24 months. This fixed the due date for possession at 15 May 2016. By then, the complainants had paid ₹51,67,806 towards the sale consideration.

According to the complaint, although payments were duly made, the builder failed to execute the conveyance deed. An employee of DLF later informed them that their original file had been seized by the CBI, and that for registering the conveyance deed, a NOC from the CBI was required. Aggrieved, the complainants approached the Authority seeking delayed possession charges, interest, and execution of the conveyance deed in their favour.

Builder’s Contentions

DLF contended that possession of the plots had actually been offered on 16 April 2016, which was even before the contractual deadline of 15 May 2016. The builder pointed out that as per the final account statement dated 16 April 2016, the complainants still owed a sum of ₹23,79,293.33.

It was submitted that on 18 August 2017, the CBI directed the builder to provide details of several plots, including those allotted to the complainants. On 29 August 2017, the CBI seized the original case file for the complainants’ plots. Since then, the builder has repeatedly asked the complainants to arrange a NOC from the CBI so that the conveyance deed could be executed. An email dated 17 January 2023 reiterated this requirement, but the complainants failed to obtain such a certificate.

DLF further highlighted that on 30 December 2024, the Enforcement Directorate issued a notice under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, in connection with investigations concerning the complainants. Details of the plots were sought from the builder, who duly responded on 8 January 2025. The builder argued that the matter is under investigation before other competent authorities, and thus, the Authority should not issue any directions.

Authority’s Observations

The Authority noted that the complainants were allotted plots through an allotment letter dated 17 February 2014, followed by execution of a Plot Buyer’s Agreement on 15 May 2014. Clause 11(a) of the agreement obligated the builder to deliver possession within 24 months, i.e., by 15 May 2016.

It observed that the builder had indeed offered possession on 16 April 2016, prior to the agreed date, supported by part completion certificates obtained in July 2014 and March 2016. Therefore, the Authority held that “no delay can be attributed to the respondent, and consequently, the complainants are not entitled to any claim towards delayed possession charges.” Regarding execution of the conveyance deed, the Authority noted that the original file had been seized by the CBI in August 2017 and that a NOC was necessary for registration. The complainants, however, have not secured the NOC to date. Moreover, with proceedings pending before the CBI and the Enforcement Directorate, the Authority held that it was not in a position to grant relief.

The order stated: “The complainant is at liberty to obtain a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the said authority and, upon obtaining the same, may approach the respondent for taking possession and for execution of the Conveyance Deed.”

Also Read: HRERA Orders Imperia Structures To Pay Assured Returns; Quashes Pre-Possession Maintenance Demand

Holding that the builder had fulfilled its contractual obligation by offering possession before the due date, and in view of the ongoing proceedings before the CBI and ED, the Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority dismissed the complaints filed by Priyanka Batra and Vivek Batra as not maintainable. The complainants were left free to obtain the requisite NOC and then approach the builder for execution of the conveyance deed and possession of their plots.

Appearance

For Complainant/(s): Maninder Singh, Advocate

For Respondent: Ishaan Dang, Advocate

Cause Title: Priyanka Batra and Vivek Batra V. M/S DLF Limited

Case No: Complaint no. 5237 of 2024 and 5049 of 2024.

Coram: Ashok Sangwan [Member]