A dispute regarding shop buyers at the Metroplex East Mall in East Delhi has resurfaced. Buyers claim they purchased the premises by investing all their savings in 2011 and fully paid for them, but years later, neither the shops nor the registration has been provided to them.
According to the buyers, the construction of the mall was not carried out according to the approved plan. They state that the plan was approved for about 110 shops, but approximately 245 shops were actually built. Furthermore, the shop owners allege that the layout of the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) was changed, which led to a stalemate in obtaining the completion certificate and fire department clearance.
The shop owners report purchasing the premises at Metroplex East Mall around 2011. Many of them invested hard-earned money into this venture, viewing it as an investment for their business and family's future. Despite full payment for the shop, legal ownership and registration have still not been granted to them.
Owners say that when they raised concerns about the situation with their shops, they faced various difficulties. The most serious issue relates to the number of shops: buyers insist that the approved plan stipulated about 110 shops, whereas approximately 245 were actually constructed.
Buyers argue that because the construction deviated from the approved design, the mall failed to obtain the necessary completion certificates and fire department approval. They also point to changes in the DDA layout. However, the final status concerning the alleged changes in the number of shops and construction must be determined by relevant government records and court rulings.
The buyers have approached the court regarding this dispute. They claim that judgments in their favor have been passed at both lower and higher levels. According to the buyers, the court directed the DDA to take appropriate action under the rules in this case. Nevertheless, the problem remains unresolved, and they are still awaiting the handover of the premises and registration.
Buyers also report difficulties accessing the mall to inspect their shops. Recently, when some owners came to check the condition of their shops, they were disappointed. Some accused that certain shops, for which they paid years ago, are allegedly being rented out to others. When they tried to object, people identifying themselves as lawyers approached them and demanded documents related to the shops. Buyers question how other people can use their shops if they have not yet been granted ownership and registration.
Buyers assert that they invested not millions, but huge sums of money in this project. They state that the project cost was about 28 crore rupees in 2010, while it is now claimed to have reached 500 crore rupees. Buyers also allege financial irregularities amounting to about 110 crore rupees. Although these allegations have not received independent confirmation, the final decision on the matter will depend on the court and relevant government records.
Buyers state that their life savings were tied up in this project. Their demand is for a thorough investigation of the entire case based on government records and court orders, action against those responsible, and the granting of legal right and ownership of their shops. Due to the prolonged delay, they are experiencing economic and psychological pressure. Some buyers mentioned considering extremely serious steps. They note that the long-term frozen investments and the inability to use the shops have created an economic crisis for them.
A DDA member and BJP politician Rajiv Babbar stated that the construction company did not operate according to the rules. He said the company occupied the land in 2010 and submitted a plan to the DDA. Rajiv Babbar reported that during a DDA inspection in January 2020, it was found that the construction did not match the approved plan on site. Following this, the DDA issued a notice to the company demanding an explanation within about two months. He added that the case later went to the RERA court, where directions were given to take action against the concerned company. According to Babbar, the DDA also issued orders regarding sealing and demolition, but the concerned party approached the court before these measures could be taken.
Rajiv Babbar noted that many buyers have also approached the court through various petitions, and the DDA has been involved as a party.