’20-Year Wait for Homes’: Supreme Court Issues Warrants Against Haryana Builder’s Directors, Questions State Machinery
In a strongly worded order highlighting the prolonged suffering of homebuyers, the Supreme Court initiated coercive action against Haryana-based Parsvnath Developers after finding continued non-compliance with orders of the Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (HRERA). The Court issued bailable warrants against the company’s directors, ordered the freezing of their bank accounts and warned that non-bailable warrants would follow if they failed to appear before the Court on the next date.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana was hearing petitions filed by senior citizen homebuyers of the Parsvnath Exotica project in Gurugram. The petitioners, who booked flats in 2006 and signed buyer agreements in 2007, alleged that despite paying the entire sale consideration, they are still awaiting possession nearly two decades later. Describing the matter as one reflecting the “plight of homebuyers”, the Court observed that the buyers had been deprived of homes promised long ago.
The Supreme Court noted that HRERA had passed orders in favour of the homebuyers in 2021 directing the builder to compensate them, and those orders were never challenged by the developer. However, despite execution proceedings, repeated recovery certificates and warrants, the authorities failed to recover even a single rupee. The Bench expressed serious concern that the statutory remedies created under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 were proving ineffective when enforcement agencies failed to secure compliance.
Taking a stern view of the conduct of the developer, the Court restrained Parsvnath Developers and its group entities from creating any third-party rights in the project or handing over possession of units until further orders. It also directed the freezing of bank accounts belonging to the companies as well as their managing directors, directors and senior officials, signalling that continued defiance of judicial and regulatory orders would attract stringent consequences.
The Bench was equally critical of the Haryana administration. Observing that bailiffs were allegedly prevented from entering the builder’s premises and that police assistance had failed to secure compliance, the Court remarked that the Collector and local police appeared, prima facie, to have either colluded with the builder or failed to discharge their statutory responsibilities. It directed the Haryana Chief Secretary, Director General of Police, district authorities and concerned banks to ensure immediate compliance with its directions and to file affidavits before the Court.
The order is expected to have significant implications for real estate regulation across the country. By questioning the effectiveness of the RERA enforcement mechanism and taking direct coercive measures against the builder and its management, the Supreme Court has sent a strong message that regulatory orders cannot remain merely on paper. The case is likely to shape future enforcement of RERA decisions and strengthen accountability of both developers and State authorities in protecting the rights of homebuyers.
