The Punjab and Haryana HC has directed the DTCP to decide on a complaint by AIPL against the licence transfer of the ‘Grand Hyatt Residences’ project in Gurugram. The court has stalled new allotments and creation of third-party rights.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed the Director, Town and Country Planning (DTCP), Haryana, to decide a complaint filed by Advance India Projects Limited (AIPL) challenging the grant and transfer of a development licence relating to the IREO Group’s ‘Grand Hyatt Residences’ project in Gurugram. Pending a decision on the complaint, the Court has restrained the private respondents from making any further allotments or creating any additional third-party rights in the project.
High Court Issues Interim Directions
A Division Bench of Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri and Justice Sanjiv Berry directed the DTCP to decide AIPL’s complaint under Section 8 of the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975, after granting an adequate opportunity of hearing to all stakeholders, including the petitioner. The Court said that if the matter is not decided on the scheduled date of July 20, 2026, the authority shall hear it on a day-to-day basis and pass a reasoned speaking order within a further period of two weeks.
The Bench observed that while development projects should ordinarily not be stalled, courts must also safeguard the interests of homebuyers where projects involving thousands of crores of rupees are under challenge. Accordingly, it ordered that no further allotments shall be made and no further third-party rights shall be created until the petitioner’s complaint is decided.
Details of the Petition and Allegations
The interim directions came on an application filed in a writ petition by AIPL against the Director, Department of Town and Country Planning, Haryana, IREO Group companies (respondents 3 to 13) and Oberoi Realty Limited (respondent No. 14).
Challenge to Licence Transfer to Oberoi Realty
The petition challenges Licence No. 69 of 2025 dated May 12, 2025 and the subsequent approval dated June 17, 2025 permitting the change of developer in favour of Oberoi Realty. According to the writ petition, AIPL has alleged that the Haryana authorities illegally permitted the transfer, commercial monetisation and regularisation of development rights relating to the IREO Group’s ‘Grand Hyatt Residences’ project in Sector 58, Gurugram, in violation of the Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) Policy, the Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA) and the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act.
AIPL has sought quashing of Licence No. 69 of 2025 and the consequential approvals granted in favour of Oberoi Realty, alleging that the authorities failed to examine whether the transactions complied with India’s FDI regime before approving the change of developer.
History of the Project and FDI Concerns
According to the petition, the licensed land was originally covered under Licence Nos. 63 of 2009, 107 of 2010 and 60 of 2012 in favour of IREO Group entities. AIPL has alleged that although foreign investment in the sector is permitted only for genuine construction and development activity, the IREO Group treated the licensed land, licences and development rights as commercially tradable assets and transferred them for profit without completing the project.
The petition further alleges that foreign investment routed through offshore entities, including those in Mauritius and Cyprus, was infused into IREO entities and subsequently utilised in a manner contrary to the Consolidated FDI Policy, 2020. It claims that the subsequent transfer of the project to Oberoi Realty amounted to prohibited “real estate business” under Clause 5.2.10 of the policy.
Project Delays and Conflicting Rights
AIPL has also alleged that after obtaining the development licences, the IREO Group launched the “Grand Hyatt Residences” project, collected substantial amounts from homebuyers and investors, but failed to complete the development in accordance with the licence conditions and statutory obligations. The petition further claims that the IREO entities created multiple and conflicting third-party rights over the same licensed land. It refers to a Memorandum of Understanding executed in favour of AIPL in March 2021, followed by an Agreement to Sell in November 2023 and a Sale Deed executed in May 2024. According to AIPL, despite these transactions, approvals were subsequently granted in favour of Oberoi Realty in respect of the same licensed land and development rights.
Involvement of Investigation Agencies
According to the petition, certain IREO Group entities are under investigation by agencies including the Enforcement Directorate (ED), the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) and the Economic Offences Wing (EOW) over alleged diversion and siphoning of funds, money laundering and misuse of homebuyers’ money. AIPL has further alleged that despite the pendency of these investigations, the DTCP issued Licence No. 69 of 2025 and approved the change of developer in favour of Oberoi Realty without discharging its statutory obligation under the Consolidated FDI Policy, 2020, to monitor compliance with FDI conditions. It has also been alleged that although detailed representations pointing to the alleged FDI and FEMA violations and illegal transfer of development rights were submitted to the authorities, no action was taken.
Court Proceedings and Final Order
Before the High Court, the respondents opposed the grant of interim relief, contending that the petitioner lacked locus standi and asserting that there had been no violation of the FDI policy or any statutory provision. They also submitted that respondent No. 14 had already invested approximately ₹500 crore in the project and that stopping the development would cause irreparable loss.
The State informed the Court that AIPL’s complaint was already pending before the DTCP and would be decided after granting an opportunity of hearing to all stakeholders.
Taking note of the rival submissions, the High Court held that the legality of the licence and its subsequent transfer should first be examined by the competent statutory authority. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the dispute, it directed expeditious disposal of the pending complaint while protecting the interests of prospective allottees by restraining further allotments and the creation of third-party rights until the complaint is decided. (ANI)
(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by Asianet Newsable English staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)