The Supreme Court has ordered a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe into alleged irregularities around the development of the DLF Primus residential project at Gurgaon’s Sector 82A.In a February 25 order, uploaded recently, it cited a “huge mismatch” between legal requirements and ground realities, including representations made to prospective buyers that may not have been fully translated into reality.The bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and R Mahadevan, hearing a batch of appeals filed by 9 homebuyers arising out a national consumer forum order, also expressed concern over the role of regulatory authorities meant to safeguard ordinary consumers while clarifying that no definitive opinion was expressed against any person or authority.However, the court took “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 bench observed that the case might be “tentatively put, just the tip of the proverbial iceberg” and not a one-off incident, adding that in the organised real estate sector, such instances occur, raising concerns about the plight of ordinary consumers.According to appeals filed in the top court, a May 2012 DLF marketing campaign had projected the project as a premium residential complex with amenities including two 24-metre access roads, banquet facilities, tennis courts, swimming pools and others. The roads were highlighted as a defining feature.Relying on these representations, the pleas claimed the appellant-flat owners booked apartments on August 31, 2012. They paid Rs 1.16 crore (approximately 95% of the sale consideration) on October 15, 2012, partly financed through Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd.Story continues below this adThe Apartment Buyer’s Agreement dated December 24, 2012, stipulated possession within 42 months, by February 28, 2016.However, by February 2016, the appeals claimed, the project was nowhere near completion. The buyers alleged a partial Occupation Certificate (OC) was issued on October 7, 2016, despite no water connections, no electricity, no roads and no infrastructure. The pleadings allege this partial OC allowed DLF to avoid registration under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act (RERA), 2016, reducing compliances.The pleas claimed even in January 2017, the towers remained under construction with scaffolding. Possession was offered on January 27, 2017, with an inflated demand increasing the balance from Rs 9,19,500 to Rs 16,76,391.68, along with an undertaking seeking waiver of future claims.The appellants raised objections on May 30 and June 20, 2017, regarding incomplete infrastructure.Story continues below this adOn August 5, 2017, the District Town Planner confirmed it was only a partial OC, highlighting incompleteness, but no corrective action followed, it is alleged.Aggrieved, the appellants filed a consumer complaint before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) on June 12, 2017.During proceedings, it emerged on August 20, 2019, that a portion of the single 24-metre access road constructed by DLF was on rented private agricultural land belonging to farmers, with no acquisition or permanent easement, rendering the project effectively landlocked, the pleas alleged.In May 2019, homeowners challenged the partial OC in the Punjab and Haryana High Court, arguing it circumvented statutory safeguards like RERA compliance, but it remained pending.Story continues below this adIn 2023, the NCDRC partly allowed the complaint, finding deficiency in services and unfair practices.Homeowners, however, weren’t happy with this and moved the top court.Their pleas, which sought transfer of the High Court petition to the SC, has been tagged with their appeal against the 2023 NCDRC order.“Despite all the evidence on record… Hon’ble NCDRC finally issued the present impugned order, whereby it found deficiencies in service and unfair trade practices by the respondent-builder… However, no real compensation or justice has been afforded to the appellants. The Hon’ble NCDRC has only partly granted the complaint, imposed negligible costs and directed the Builder to acquire private land for a road within six months, which is presumably out of its jurisdiction,” the plea alleged.Story continues below this adThe top court has now directed the CBI to place its findings and a progress report on record by April 25, with Additional Solicitor General S V Raju to assist the court. The matter is listed next on April 28.When contacted, a DLF spokesperson said “the matter pertains to a project in New Gurgaon, where 694 allottees have taken possession of their flats after we received the Occupation Certificate in 2016. The present proceedings arise from consumer complaints filed by 5 allottees, which were adjudicated by the NCDRC and is presently under appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court”.The spokesperson added, “The company reiterates that it has acted in full compliance with applicable laws and regulatory requirements. The company will extend complete cooperation to the authority in the conduct of the inquiry. Given that the matter is sub judice before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it would not be appropriate to comment further on this matter.”