Proceedings
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.
