Gurgaon: For more than 2,000 homebuyers who had paid for flats but remained trapped in a criminal case against the developer, a district court has opened the door to getting their properties back. In a major relief, the special PMLA court has ordered the restoration of immovable properties to 2,312 bonafide buyers in projects linked to the SRS Group, holding that genuine purchasers cannot be left to suffer endlessly for alleged wrongdoing by builders.The order was passed on March 11 by special judge (PMLA) Vani Gopal Sharma after ED completed a verification exercise to identify eligible applicants. The properties are spread across SRS Royal Hills phases 1 and 2, SRS Pearl Floors, SRS Residency, SRS Pearl Heights and SRS Pearl Unity in Faridabad and Palwal.The dispute is linked to 81 FIRs registered between 2017 and 2018 by cops in Faridabad and Delhi, and CBI. As the money-laundering probe widened, ED in Jan 2020 provisionally attached assets worth more than Rs 2,200 crore. That move froze several housing projects and left thousands of buyers in limbo, despite many having already paid most or all of the sale consideration.The latest relief came after Punjab and Haryana high court pressed for swift action so that innocent third-party buyers were not indefinitely deprived of their homes because of pending criminal proceedings against the developer.In allowing restoration, the court relied on settled judicial principles protecting bonafide homebuyers. The ED, in turn, applied a screening test. Applicants had to show substantial payment, usually close to the full price, and back their claims with sale agreements, possession-related papers and verifiable banking records. The agency also checked whether any applicant had direct or indirect links with the developer or the accused entities.Not every claim survived scrutiny. The court recorded that 116 applications were rejected or flagged because of incomplete documents or discrepancies. In several such cases, large cash payments could not be properly supported by financial records.To carry out the order, the court asked ED to appoint a nodal officer and oversee phased restoration, with project-wise records to be maintained. It also made clear that the exercise remains subject to final adjudication in the trial and is not a final ruling on ownership. If any claim is later found to involve misrepresentation, authorities may revisit it.
