Gurgaon: Supreme Court has found a “substantial” deviation from the original plan at DLF Primus.The apex court observed that a 24-metre-wide road earmarked to cut across the project does not exist as such and that nearly two-thirds of the designated stretch is being used either as a green patch or for parking.“The deviation is not minor but substantial,” a bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice R Mahadevan said.A status report dated Aug 3 — submitted by Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) — formed the basis of the court’s latest observations.While hearing a batch of civil appeals involving DLF Home Developers and residents, the court said the project was required to be delivered in accordance with the representations made in the brochure and plan provided to prospective buyers.The court also questioned why the deviation had not been rectified despite repeated opportunities to bring the project in conformity with what was represented in the brochure.The apex court asked the CBI director to assign two additional inspectors to assist the agency’s superintendent of police Saurabh Gupta in completing the preliminary enquiry (PE). The matter has been listed for Oct 12 at 3 pm to await the CBI’s final report.SC clarified that the CBI must conduct the PE “objectively and independently” and said it should not be influenced or prejudiced by anything that had transpired, or by observations made, during the proceedings.The court said its observations were intended only “to sensitise the parties to the seriousness of the issues involved.”Haryana govt and other respondents concerned have also been directed to file detailed responses to affidavits filed by private parties and disclose the steps taken to ensure that future construction is carried out strictly in accordance with relevant statutes.SC cautioned the state and its officials that if necessary steps were not taken by the next date, “this court shall not show any further indulgence”.The CBI status report followed SC’s July 21 order directing a fact-finding exercise to ascertain whether the 24-metre-wide road cutting across the DLF Primus project was being maintained as a road or whether its nature had been altered.The bench said, “From the material placed before us including the maps and photographs, there is no dispute that the 24-metre-wide road, which was to cut across the entire project, does not exist as such within the project.”The court noted that portions of the designated road were being used for parking or had been developed as a green track.It said its comparison of the original brochure and plan with the CBI report and photographs left “no manner of doubt” that the road in the middle of the project was not in conformity with the original plan.According to the order, out of the 147-metre stretch earmarked for the 24-metre-wide road, about 52 metres had been developed as a green patch. Another substantial portion, “almost of an equivalent extent”, was being used for parking by residents and visitors.Thus, approximately 100 metres of the 147-metre stretch was either a green patch or being used for parking, “constituting almost two-thirds of the entire stretch”.At the same time, the court recorded that the fire department’s stand, as reflected in its report, indicated that the project satisfied the prescribed fire safety standards.CBI told the court that its PE was being conducted pursuant to the July 21 order and that additional manpower would facilitate its expeditious completion.The court also expressed dissatisfaction with the conduct of Haryana govt and its officials. This related to the acquisition of approximately 100 metres of land required for the 24-metre-wide road to connect the project with the 60-metre Sector Road, as well as the failure to take effective steps to overcome impediments and end pending litigation that could be coming in the way of elections to the Residents Welfare Association.The court made it clear that if, by the next 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”.
