| 08-Sep-2025 |
Proceedings
dated: 08.09.2025.
Ms.
Deepika, Planning Executive and Sh. Ashish Dubey, Chartered Accountant briefed
about the facts of the case.
Sh.
Rahul Dahiya, Sh. Rahul Sharma (AR) along with Sh. Venkat Rao (Advocate) are present
on behalf of the promoter.
Sh. Rohan Gupta
(Advocate), accompanied by Shyambir Tyagi and Manoj Tyagi, appeared on behalf
of the landowners, along with the allottees of Park Prime & Park Mansions.
The allottees reiterated their objections, primarily raising concerns of
misrepresentation by the promoter, unauthorized modifications to approved
layout plans without consents, illegal post‑OC expansion, and violations of the
phasing policy and Builder‑Buyer Agreements. The allottees further objected as to
how the promoter could apply additional FAR for Phase II when Occupancy
Certificates (OCs) have already been issued for Phase I (10.283 acres)—which
includes Towers A, B, D, E, F, G, H, J, EWS units, and the Convenient Shopping
area especially when the conveyance deeds have been executed in favor of the
allottees.
The
AR of the promoter clarified that the revised building plans have been duly
approved by the competent authority i.e., DTCP, Haryana, after ensuring all
requisite obligations/compliance with applicable laws, rules, and regulations.
As part of the statutory process, DTCP issued public notices in three leading
newspapers dated 20.06.2025, inviting objections and suggestions from allottees
and after considering the same, the revised building plans have been duly
approved by DTCP vide Memo No. ZP-374-VIII/PA(DK)/2025/26555 dated 14.07.2025,
and the phasing plan for the project is also duly approved by DTCP in pursuance
to policy issued by Government vide Memo No. Misc-862/2023/7/1/2023-2TCP-11689-91
dated 24.04.2023. Further, the registration is applied for phase-II, which
includes additional license area of 3.45 acres and only a 0.785 acres area has
been included from phase-I, which in earlier plan was reserved for villas and
no sale/third party rights in respect of these villas have been created and
thus the requirement of prior consent of allottees of phase-I, does not arise in
view of the policy direction issued by State Government to Chairman HARERA as
well as DTCP. The area under changed of phase-I, is less than 1 acres and no
exceeding 5% and hence does not constitute revision in terms of clause
3.1.2(ii) of policy dated 24.04.2023.
The
promoter also submits that a Settlement Agreement dated 09.01.2025 was executed
between the developer and the RWA/residents, which explicitly authorizes the
company to connect necessary infrastructure for the proposed towers without
affecting the existing common areas or amenities of Park Prime and Park
Mansion. The proposed towers are entirely independent and do not share any
common services, infrastructure, or amenities with the existing group housing.
In
view of the above, the Authority observes that approvals of revised
plans/phasing plans have been accorded by the competent authority i.e., DTCP
under above phasing policy and hence, the complainant/allottee are at liberty
to raise objection/ grievances if any, with the DTCP and may file complaint
under section 31 for compensation in terms of section 14 of the Act, 2016, if
any rights under Act, 2016 are infringed.
The
complainants have further objected that, despite having obtained the OC and
handing over physical possession, the promoter is using the FAR of their site
area/TDR on the additional licensed land, which is applied for registration
under Section 4 of the Act, 2016.
The
AR of promoter stated that the additional FAR obtained through TDR does not
pertain to the current project. In this regard, the promoter submitted a TDR
certificate (No. 1-683 of 54/2024), issued by DTCP on 09.12.2024, which clearly
shows that the TDR FAR has been sourced from a site located in Sector 106 and
has been loaded onto the additional licensed land. In view of the above, the
Authority directed the promoter to provide an undertaking that the services for
the newly proposed towers will remain separate and independent and will not
adversely affect the rights and services of the existing allottees of phase- I the
additional TDR/ FAR being used does not pertain to the 10.283-acres site.
The
complainants Sh. Shyambir Tyagi, Sh. Sanjay Tyagi, and Sh. Manoj Tyagi as
landowners of 3.45 acres in Village Maidawas, Gurugram, raised objections to
the RERA registration of “Downtown 66” (License No. 73 of 2024), seeking a halt
to registration until their concerns over additional FAR sharing across the
14.5 acres (which includes 11.068 acres under License No. 31 of 2008) are
resolved.
The
counsel of the promoter countered that all disputes had been conclusively
settled through a Settlement Agreement dated 06.09.2023, along with a
registered irrevocable collaboration agreement executed on the same day. Under
the said agreement, the landowners were allotted a fixed share of 94,677.66 sq.
ft., waived any claim to additional FAR, granted irrevocable powers of
attorney, and received a refundable deposit of ₹12 crores. The promoter argued
that the current objections amount to a rekindling of already settled matters
and constitute a breach of the landowners’ contractual obligation to support
the registration process. It was further submitted that any dispute arising out
of the collaboration agreement does not fall within the jurisdiction of the
RERA forum and must be adjudicated by a competent civil court or other
appropriate forum. It was also submitted that the said agreement is binding
upon both parties, and the promoter is under an obligation to perform its
commitments including allocation of agreed covered area as per the terms of the
collaboration agreement. If the landowners have any grievance regarding the
same, they are at liberty to seek redressal before the appropriate authority/ forum,
in accordance with law.
The
Authority further observes that, in the proceedings regarding non-registration
under Section 3 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, an
order has already been passed, wherein the Occupation Certificate issued in
2020 is not specifically mentioned and hence the planning executive/ chartered
accountant to examine if the same is covered in terms of rule 2(o) and if not,
the promoter shall submit undertaking to seek its registration as well. The
Secretary/ PC to keep a follow up and to ensure the necessary action in the
matter.
Approved
as proposed, subject to the submission of above undertakings/ deficit documents
along with BG/DD of Rs 25 lakhs each for submission of approved service plan
& estimates, fire scheme approval and environment clearance which have
already been applied to the concerned authority. This approval is without
prejudice to the rights of the allottees under section 14 of the Act, 2016.
The
Registration Certificate will be issued upon correction of DPI and online A–H
form, along with compliance of deficient documents, and the conditions imposed
above. |
APPROVED AND READY FOR CERTIFICATE ISSUING PROCESS |
View Order |
| 11-Aug-2025 |
Ms. Deepika, Planning Executive and Sh. Ashish Dubey,
Chartered Accountant briefed about the facts of the case.
Sh. Venke Rao (Advocate) and Sh. Rahul Sharma (AR) are
present on behalf of the promoter.
Sh. Varun Jindal, SH. KK. Shegal and 27 other
individuals appeared on behalf of the complainants.
A public notice was published in three newspapers—two
English ("The Tribune" and "Hindustan Times") and one Hindi
("Dainik Bhaskar")—on 24.07.2025, regarding the proposed registration
under Section 4 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.
Following the publication, multiple objections were received from allottees and
landowners.
The objections raised by allottees are as briefed out
here such as illegal use of infrastructure like approved site plan allegedly
utilizes the existing infrastructure and amenities of the complainants' colony
without their consent, strain on shared infrastructure, unauthorized use of
access road, environmental and living quality concerns, traffic congestion,
disruption of common facilities & privacy and safety issues. Further, some
objections are also raised by Landowners namely Sh. Shyambir Tyagi, Sh. Sanjay
Tyagi, and Sh. Manoj. They stated that TDR approval has already been granted
for the 14.5-acre site plan. As per the terms of the collaboration agreement,
the landowners are entitled to a share of the additional FAR granted.
In view of the above, the Authority directed that all
objections received from the allottees and landowners be examined by the
office. A copy of the objections shall be provided to the promoter, who shall
submit a detailed reply within one week. The reply submitted by the promoter to
the Authority shall be shared by the promoter with both parties (the landowners
and the allottees). The promoter is further directed to resolve all concerns
raised by the allottees and landowners and to submit the deficit documents as
already conveyed by the Authority.
The matter to come up on
08.09.2025.
|
EXAMINATION BY AUTHORITY |
View Order |