The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that Haryana’s Department of Town and Country Planning (DTCP) can take action against individual plot owners and occupants for building violations in licensed colonies even after those areas become part of a municipal corporation. The ruling, delivered in proceedings concerning alleged violations across Gurugram’s DLF City, rejected the argument that enforcement powers shifted exclusively to the Municipal Corporation of Gurugram once the colonies were brought within municipal limits.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor held that DTCP’s jurisdiction flows from the licence granted for development of a colony under the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975. The inclusion of such an area within municipal limits neither creates nor extinguishes that jurisdiction as long as the licence and its conditions continue to operate.
Jurisdiction challenge rejected
The preliminary objection had been raised by affected plot owners and occupants who argued that DTCP could no longer proceed against them after DLF City came within the limits of the Municipal Corporation of Gurugram. According to their contention, powers to deal with building and zoning violations thereafter rested with the municipal corporation under the Haryana Municipal Corporation Act, 1994.
The High Court disagreed, holding that the 1975 law does not apply merely because land lies outside a municipality. Its operation arises from the fact that the land forms part of a licensed colony, and the subsequent inclusion of that colony within municipal boundaries does not erase the regulatory framework attached to its development licence.
The Bench also examined the relationship between the 1975 Act and Haryana’s municipal laws. It found that while municipal authorities have their own powers to regulate construction and misuse, those provisions do not automatically displace the separate enforcement powers available to DTCP.
DLF violations under scanner
The proceedings concern alleged large-scale building and zoning violations across DLF Phases I to V in Gurugram. A comprehensive survey of the licensed area covered 14,757 plots, including 11,008 general-category plots and 3,749 plots meant for the Economically Weaker Sections.
Authorities identified violations including commercial activities being carried out from residential properties, construction beyond permissible floor area ratios and additional floors raised contrary to approved plans. Several of these were categorised as non-compoundable violations, exposing the properties to enforcement proceedings.
Notices were subsequently issued under the 1975 Act, followed in some cases by restoration orders and proceedings involving sealing and demolition. FIRs were also initiated in certain cases as authorities intensified action against alleged unauthorised development.
The dispute had gained particular significance in DLF Phase III, where complaints were made over alleged inaction against unauthorised construction and commercial use of residential properties. Earlier reports submitted to the court had recommended measures including cancellation of occupation certificates, criminal proceedings and disconnection of utilities in appropriate cases.
Over 5,000 violators identified
The enforcement exercise identified 5,099 alleged violators, but only 763 objections were received after public notices were issued. The DTCP enforcement authority subsequently considered the objections and passed speaking orders, including an order rejecting the challenge to its jurisdiction.
The case had earlier reached the Supreme Court after affected owners and occupants challenged a High Court order directing action against unauthorised constructions. In October 2025, the Supreme Court restored the petitions for fresh consideration, emphasising that construction or commercial use contrary to applicable norms could not be protected while also directing that affected owners and occupants be given an opportunity to be heard.
Following that direction, proceedings resumed before the High Court and affected parties were allowed to place their objections on record. The latest ruling resolves the preliminary question of whether DTCP possesses the authority to proceed at all once a licensed colony falls within municipal limits.
Enforcement powers survive
The High Court held that construction in a licensed colony remains subject to approved plans and conditions attached to the licence. Since those obligations survive municipalisation, the statutory mechanism empowering DTCP to enforce them also continues.
The ruling means plot owners cannot resist DTCP proceedings solely on the ground that their properties now fall within the Municipal Corporation of Gurugram. Questions relating to individual violations, however, will still have to be considered according to law and after affected parties are given the required opportunity to present their case.
The decision could have consequences beyond DLF City because Gurugram has several privately developed licensed colonies that subsequently became part of municipal limits. The overlap between municipal regulation and DTCP’s authority had long been cited in disputes over enforcement against unauthorised construction and conversion of residential properties to commercial use.