Laws and sections by number or title, due dates, pages, and updates.
The Competition Commission of India closes the information filed by real estate developers against the Department of Town and Country Planning and Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran under Section 26(2) of the Competition Act, 2002. The informants allege contravention of Section 4 of the Act regarding the imposition of external development charges and infrastructure development charges without timely execution of development works, along with onerous terms in letters of intent, bilateral agreements, and licences. The Commission finds that the opposite parties discharge sovereign, statutory, and regulatory functions under the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975, and rules framed thereunder, which do not constitute commercial activities or operate in a market amendable to review under the Act. Furthermore, the issue regarding the obligation to pay external development charges independently of work completion has reached finality through judicial pronouncements. Consequently, no prima facie case of contravention is established, and the interim applications stand disposed of.
Key dates
Who is affected
If you do not comply
Ask about this competition order
COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA
Case No. 14 of 2025
In Re:
ILD Housing Projects Private Limited (formerly known as International Land Developers Private Limited) 611-A, Devika Tower 6, Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019
Informant
And
Department of Town and Country Planning, Government of Haryana Plot No. 3, Sector-18A, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh-160018
Opposite Party No.1
Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran (Formerly Haryana Urban Development Authority) HSVP Office Complex, C-3, Sector-6, Panchkula-134109, Haryana
Opposite Party No.2
With Case No. 16 of 2025
In Re:
Confederation of Real Estate Developers’ Association of India-NCR FF-01, Omaxe Square, Jasola District Centre, New Delhi-110025
Informant
And
Department of Town and Country Planning, Government of Haryana Plot No. 3, Sector-18A, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh-160018
Opposite Party No.1
Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran HSVP Office Complex, C-3, Sector-6, Panchkula-134109, Haryana
Opposite Party No.2
Coram:
Ms. Ravneet Kaur Chairperson
Mr. Anil Agrawal Member
Ms. Sweta Kakkad Member
Mr. Deepak Anurag Member
Order under Section 26(2) of the Competition Act, 2002
The present Information has been filed by ILD Housing Projects Private Limited (“ILD”/“Informant No.1”) and Confederation of Real Estate Developers' Association of India-NCR (“CREDAI”/“Informant No.2”) (collectively referred to as the “Informants”) respectively under Section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002 (“Act”), alleging contravention of the provisions of Section 4 of the Act by Department of Town and Country Planning, Government of Haryana, (“DTCP”/ “Opposite Party No.1”/“OP-1”) and Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran (“HSVP”/“Opposite Party No.2”/“OP-2”). Hereinafter, OP-1 and OP-2 are collectively referred to as the Opposite Parties (“OPs”).
The Information has been filed pursuant to the order of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi dated 07.04.2025 passed in Writ Petitions [W.P.(C) 3705/2025 titled as ILD Housing Projects Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCI and others and W.P.(C) 10948/2024 titled as CREDAI NCR vs. CCI and others] wherein the Hon’ble High Court has directed the Commission to bestow its urgent consideration to the matter.
The Commission considered the matter in its ordinary meeting held on 16.07.2025 and decided to club Case No. 16 of 2025 with Case No. 14 of 2025 in terms of the proviso of Section 26(1) of the Act, considering that the subject matter of the Information in both the cases, was substantially the same.
The Commission also decided to forward a copy of the Information to the OPs to seek their comments/reply within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of the order.
Facts, as stated in the Information
Informant No. 1 is a real estate developer in Haryana and has developed various projects such as ILD Trade Centre, ILD Grand, and ILD Spire Greens etc. Informant No. 2 is the National Capital Region (“NCR”) chapter of the CREDAI, which is an apex organisation representing more than 11,940 real estate developers spread across 23 states.
OP-1 is the nodal department of the Government of Haryana (“Government”), empowered to regulate urban development in the State of Haryana. The department also renders advisory services to various corporations and boards such as OP-2, Housing Board of Haryana, Haryana State Industrial & Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. and Haryana State Marketing Board. It is also stated that OP-1 performs the following specific functions:
Regulating development of colonies to prevent ill-planned and haphazard urbanization in or around the towns under the provisions of the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975 (“Haryana Development Act”/ “HDRUA Act”);
Prevention of unauthorized and haphazard construction and regulation of planned urban development under the provision of Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas Restriction of Unregulated Development Act, 1963 (“Punjab Act”) by declaring controlled areas around towns and public institutions, preparation of their development and sectoral plans for planned urban development; and
Prevention of unauthorized constructions and regulation of planned urban development under the provisions of the Punjab New Capital Periphery (Control) (Haryana Amendment) Act, 1971 applicable to the areas around Chandigarh in Panchkula District.
To promote and secure development of urban areas in a systematic and planned way with the power to acquire, sell and dispose of property, both movable and immovable;
Use the acquired land for residential, industrial, recreational and commercial purposes;
To make available developed land to Haryana Housing Board and other bodies for providing houses to economically weaker sections of the society; and
To undertake building works.
The Director of OP-1 is obligated under the Punjab Act to prepare a plan in the prescribed manner showing the controlled area and signifying therein, the nature of restrictions and conditions proposed to be made applicable to the controlled area and submit the said plan to the Government. Under the Punjab Act, the Government may by notification, declare an area within eight kilometers on the outer sides of the boundary of any town or an area within two kilometers on the outer sides of the boundary of any industrial or housing estate, public institution or an ancient and historical monument, as a controlled area.
Under Section 62(3) of the HUDA Act, the Government has created a Local Development Authority (“LDA”) which “shall be a body corporate laying perpetual succession and a common seal with power to acquire hold and dispose of property, movable and immovable and to contract and shall by the same name sue and be sued”. The LDA is required to prepare a Master Plan (“Master Plan”), which needs to be approved by the Government.
Once the Master Plan is published by the Director of OP-1, through a gazette notification, interested developers may apply to obtain licences. The selected Developer (“Developer”) would have to pass through several stages of approval before a Letter of Intent (“LOI”) is issued by the Director of OP-1 for developing group housing projects. After issuance of LOI, a Bilateral Agreement (“Bilateral Agreement”) is executed between the Developer and the Government acting through OP-1, subsequent to which a Licence (“Licence”) is issued to the Developer.
As per the Information, under the HDRUA Act, a Developer is obligated to:
pay prescribed conversion and service charges and furnish a bank guarantee equal to twenty-five percent of the estimated cost of development works;
pay External Development Charges (“EDC”) and Infrastructure Development Charges (“IDC”) (as defined under Section 2 of the HDRUA Act);
Construct at its own cost schools, hospitals, community centers and other community buildings on the lands set apart for this purpose, or to transfer to the Government at any time, if so desired by the Government, free of cost;
deposit 30% of the amount received, from time to time, from plot-holders within a period of 10 days of its realisation in a separate account to be maintained in a scheduled bank. This amount shall only be utilised towards meeting the cost of infrastructure development works in the colony;
undertake to pay proportionate development charges if the main lines of roads, drainage, sewerage, water supply and electricity are to be laid out and constructed by the Government or any other local authority. The proportion in which and the time within which such payment is to be made shall be determined by the Director of OP-1;
pay development charges including the cost of development of State/National Highways, Transport, Irrigation and Power facilities as determined by the Director;
the licence granted shall be valid for 2 years, during which period all development works in the colony shall be completed.
The HDRUA Act allows for Developers to pass on the burden of payment of such charges including service charges, to the consumers. It is alleged that the HDRUA Act and the Rules lay down the quantum of charges and the timelines within which the same must be paid by the Developers, without laying down the timelines within which the OPs must carry out the corresponding development works.
The LOI provides for fulfilment of conditions including submission of bank guarantee towards EDC and IDC and signing of agreements between the Developer and OP-1. The LOI also specifies the rates for payment of various charges and fees including, conversion charge, licence fees, scrutiny fees, IDC and EDC. IDC and EDC are charged for infrastructure and external development works, respectively.
External development works as per Section 2(g) of the HDRUA Act, include water supply, sewerage, drains, necessary provision of treatment and disposal of sewage, sullage and storm water, roads, electrical works, etc. and any other work specified by the Director of OP-1 to be executed in the periphery of or outside colony/area, for the benefit of the colony/area. Infrastructure development works, as per Section 2(i) of the HDRUA Act, include metalling of road, paving footpaths, planting trees, street lighting etc. and any other work the Director of OP-1 may think to be necessary for proper development of a colony.
As averred in the Information, EDC would either be paid upfront or in instalments every 6 months for 5 years, while IDC is required to be paid in 2 instalments within 60 days of receipt of Licence. Such EDC for the industrial area/colony would be subject to proportionate increase in rates (which may be updated by adding 10% compounding interest), and the IDC would be worked out on an actual basis. These charges are pre-determined by the Director of OP-1 at the time of drafting the Master Plan and there is no possibility/provision for negotiation of the same. Further, under the Licence and LOI, these rates can also be revised after the execution of the agreement and are payable by the Developer.
The Informant has made specific reference to the Sohna Master Plan 2031 issued on 15.11.2012 (“Sohna Master Plan”), under Section 73 of the HDURA Act. Many Developers submitted bids on the belief that activities as set out in the Sohna Master Plan, would be carried out. Once Developers fulfilled the conditions stipulated under the HDURA Act and the Rules, LOI were executed between each Developer and the Director of OP-1. Subsequently, Licences were granted to several Developers under the Sohna Master Plan.
The Informants have raised concerns in relation to the entire legal and contractual framework for development of urban areas in the State of Haryana, the terms and conditions set out in the LOI and the Licence for development of a project and implementation of provisions of these documents, including of the Master Plan itself. The specific issues raised by the Informants, are as follows:
(a) EDC and IDC are being levied with no corresponding development work by the OPs, which is causing prejudice to the Developers and in turn, to various apartment owners/real estate consumers;
(b) OP-1 wields significant discretion in relation to EDC and IDC. Under the HDRUA Act, OP-1 has discretion and power to determine the proportion and the time frame within which EDC and IDC are to be paid;
(c) Under the terms of the Bilateral Agreement with OP-1, EDC is subject to revision as per the actual charges incurred including any enhanced land acquisition costs, which would be worked out later and the coloniser shall be liable to pay an additional amount as and when directed by the Director of OP-1. The assumptions on costs or timelines with respect to the development of infrastructure, are not disclosed; and
(d) Additionally, licence agreement also states that the Developer shall make arrangements for water supply, sewerage, drainage, etc. to the satisfaction of OP-1, till these services are made available from the external infrastructure to be laid down by OP-2.
As per the Information, the OPs are "enterprise" within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the Act. The Informant averred that HDRUA Act grants OPs the authority to issue Licences to Developers seeking to convert and develop land into housing colonies in the State of Haryana, making them the exclusive administrative body empowered to provide such services. Consequently, Developers intending to undertake development within Haryana, must approach the OPs for authorisation, as state-level licensing bodies function independently with no inter-substitutability of services across states. Accordingly, the relevant market in the present case is delineated as the “market for development of infrastructure and real estate in Haryana”.
OP-2 is empowered under the HUDA Act to grant Licences to Developers for undertaking real estate development in the State of Haryana, and this licensing power has been delegated to OP-1 under Section 51(1) of the HUDA Act, enabling OP-2 to issue LOIs and subsequently grant Licences for colony development. The OPs are the authorities vested with exclusive statutory powers to grant such Licences. Developers, as consumers of these services, are dependent on the Director of OP-1 for obtaining Licences necessary to undertake development activities in Haryana. Given their statutory exclusivity, scale, and structural position as the only entities authorised to regulate and permit development, the OPs enjoy a dominant position in the “market for development of infrastructure and real estate in Haryana”.
With regard to abuse of dominant position under Section 4 of the Act, the Informants have referred to clauses/terms of a template LOI issued by the Director of OP-1 in favour of a Developer for development of a Group Housing Colony in the revenue estate of Tehsil Sohna, Gurgaon District in Haryana (“Sohna LOI”); a template of the Bilateral Agreement signed between the Developer and the Governor of Haryana, acting through OP-1 (“Sohna Agreement”) and the template for LC-IV Licence granted by OP-1 to the Developer, as per Rule 12 of the Rules (“Sohna Licence”) highlighting unfair and discriminatory conduct of the OPs.
The unfair and discriminatory terms under Sohna LOI, as highlighted by the Informants, are reproduced as under:
