Greenopolis Homebuyers Await Relief After Project Abandonment and Money Laundering Probe; Delhi High Court Sets Aside Premature Restitution, Appoints Former CJI-Led Committee for Genuine Claimants
Hundreds of Greenopolis Homebuyers Caught Between PMLA and Insolvency Proceedings; Delhi High Court Creates Independent Committee to Verify Claims and Attached Assets
Facts
The dispute concerns the Greenopolis residential project in Sector 89, Gurugram, spread over approximately 47.218 acres in villages Hayatpur and Badha. The project arose from a Development Agreement dated 2 November 2011 involving Three C Shelters Pvt. Ltd. (“3C Shelters”), Orris Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Three C Universal Developers Pvt. Ltd. and certain landowners. GREENOPOLIS
Under the arrangement, development rights were divided 65:35 between 3C Shelters and Orris. A Power of Attorney was executed by Orris in favour of 3C Shelters permitting it, inter alia, to advertise, sell and collect money for units. GREENOPOLIS
HRERA records showed 1,862 total units, of which 1,650 had been allotted. 3C Shelters allotted 1,091 units, while Orris had allotted 533 units, with another 26 Orris units having no sale transaction. GREENOPOLIS
The judgment records that 3C Shelters collected ₹776.60 crore and Orris approximately ₹383.06 crore from homebuyers. Apartment Buyer Agreements were executed with individual purchasers. GREENOPOLIS
The project was subsequently abandoned. Phase I was completed, Phase II was approximately 60% complete and Phase III approximately 40% complete. GREENOPOLIS
Allegations of Siphoning of Homebuyers’ Money
Complaints followed alleging that money collected for Greenopolis had been siphoned off.
ED’s investigation claimed that both 3C Shelters and Orris had diverted substantial funds to related entities rather than using them for construction.
In particular, ED alleged that approximately ₹214.09 crore out of ₹873.83 crore collected had been siphoned off by 3C Shelters in collusion with group companies. GREENOPOLIS
An EOW FIR was also registered in 2017 under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC, followed by a chargesheet in September 2019. GREENOPOLIS
RERA and Insolvency Proceedings
The dispute simultaneously travelled through several forums.
HRERA proceedings resulted in Orris undertaking to develop and complete the project and deliver apartments even to homebuyers who had paid money to 3C Shelters.
HRERA treated Orris, being the licence holder and one of the landowners, as bearing primary responsibility for completing the project. A monitoring committee was appointed and approximately ₹52.50 crore was directed to be placed in an escrow account for construction. GREENOPOLIS
Meanwhile, CIRP proceedings were initiated against 3C Shelters by the NCLT in October 2020. Orris again represented before the NCLT that it would complete the project and deliver units to both categories of homebuyers.
However, according to the judgment, Orris subsequently changed its position in November 2022 and contended that it would deliver units only to those who had paid Orris, while claims of persons who paid 3C Shelters would have to be resolved through CIRP. GREENOPOLIS
PMLA Proceedings
Based on the 2017 FIR, ED recorded ECIR No. ECIR/GNZO/11/2024 dated 12 April 2024 and investigated 3C Shelters, Orris and their former promoters/directors under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.
ED attached several bank accounts and properties, with the attachments subsequently confirmed by the PMLA Adjudicating Authority on 23 September 2025. GREENOPOLIS
ED filed its prosecution complaint on 31 July 2025. The judgment records that the PMLA Court subsequently dropped charges against Orris by orders dated 25 October and 22 November 2025. GREENOPOLIS
The Controversial Restitution Order
Greenopolis Welfare Confederation (“GWC”) filed an application under Section 8(8) PMLA, seeking restitution of properties attached by ED.
On 27 November 2025, the Special PMLA Court allowed that application and directed ED to release properties attached under the March 2025 Provisional Attachment Order. It further permitted the IRP to liquidate the assets for purposes of restitution. GREENOPOLIS
That order triggered the principal controversy before the Delhi High Court.
ED challenged it in CRL.REV.P. 37/2026.
Greenopolis Welfare Association (“GWA”) independently challenged it in CRL.REV.P. 87/2026.
GWC, conversely, filed W.P.(CRL) 2/2026, essentially seeking implementation and enforcement of the restitution arrangement. GREENOPOLIS GREENOPOLIS
ED’s Arguments
ED contended that GWC’s Section 8(8) application was premature and legally defective.
Among its objections were that:
- GWC lacked locus;
- the IRP had not independently applied for restitution in accordance with the relevant IBBI circular;
- no proper list of beneficiaries/homebuyers had been produced;
- the Special Court had not ascertained which association actually represented genuine homebuyers; and
- restitution could not occur without satisfying the statutory PMLA framework. GREENOPOLIS
ED nevertheless supported creation of an independent monitoring mechanism to facilitate eventual restitution.
Greenopolis Welfare Association’s Position
GWA claimed to be the established and HRERA-recognised association representing a substantial majority of the homebuyers.
It claimed membership of 710 of the 1,091 3C Shelters homebuyers and 167 of the 559 Orris homebuyers and disputed GWC’s representative status. GREENOPOLIS
GWA also questioned the IRP’s conduct, alleging that he had admitted Orris as a financial creditor with a 75% voting interest in the Committee of Creditors, notwithstanding Orris’s role in the project. GREENOPOLIS
Core Issues
The principal questions before the Delhi High Court were whether the Special PMLA Court could order restitution of ED-attached properties in the manner directed on 27 November 2025; whether the beneficiaries entitled to restitution had first been properly identified; what relationship the PMLA restitution exercise should bear to the ongoing CIRP; and whether an independent monitoring mechanism was necessary to protect hundreds of competing homebuyer claims.
Analysis of the Law
1. PMLA Court’s Restitution Order Was Set Aside
The Delhi High Court ultimately set aside the Special PMLA Court’s order dated 27 November 2025.
Consequently, the earlier interim orders of the High Court dated 3 January 2026 and 21 January 2026, which had sought to preserve and clarify the effect of that restitution arrangement, were also recalled and vacated.
The Court did not, however, finally determine whether every property attached by ED would ultimately remain attached or become available for restitution. Parties asserting independent ownership over attached properties were left free to pursue their statutory remedies under PMLA.
2. Court Refused Immediate Liquidation
A particularly important aspect of the judgment is that the Delhi High Court did not immediately order sale or liquidation of ED-attached properties.
Instead, it considered the dispute too complex for immediate liquidation because of:
- hundreds of claimants;
- competing homebuyer groups;
- disputes regarding the ownership of attached assets;
- pending challenges to attachments;
- parallel insolvency proceedings; and
- uncertainty concerning the identity and quantum of claims of genuine victims.
The Court therefore decided that the factual foundation for restitution had to be established first.
3. Former CJI Sanjiv Khanna Appointed to Head Monitoring Committee
The most significant practical direction is creation of an independent Greenopolis Monitoring Committee.
The Court appointed former Chief Justice of India Justice Sanjiv Khanna as Chairperson.
He is to be assisted by two former Delhi Higher Judicial Service officers:
Mr. H.S. Sharma, former Principal District Judge, New Delhi District; and
Mr. Ajay Kumar Kuhar, former Additional District & Sessions Judge, Delhi.
The Chairperson was also empowered to engage up to eight advocates as Law Clerks, while ED must nominate two officers not below the rank of Assistant Director to assist the Committee.
4. Committee Must Identify Genuine Homebuyers
The first major function of the Committee is to prepare a verified list of genuine Greenopolis homebuyers.
Crucially, verification is to take place irrespective of whether the purchaser paid money to 3C Shelters or Orris.
This avoids allowing the 65:35 contractual arrangement between the developers to determine, at the threshold, which homebuyers may participate in the verification exercise.
The Committee must formulate an expeditious and transparent claims process and verify the amounts actually paid by each purchaser against supporting records.
5. Homebuyers Must Prove Their Claims
Each claimant will have to submit documentary evidence, including where applicable:
- apartment agreements;
- payment challans or receipts;
- bank statements; and
- other documents establishing the transaction.
Every claimant must also file a notarised affidavit declaring whether he or she has any relationship, affiliation or nexus with promoters of 3C Shelters, Orris or their associated/group entities.
The claimant must further disclose whether he or she is a property dealer, broker or otherwise engaged in the real-estate business.
The Committee may demand originals, seek further particulars and conduct summary scrutiny to test the bona fides of individual claims.
6. Complete Inventory of ED-Attached Assets
The Committee must separately maintain a complete list of properties attached by ED.
The list is to specify:
- ownership claimed over each property;
- status of attachment;
- pending challenges;
- forum where each challenge is pending; and
- valuation of each property.
ED must provide the Committee with its entire available record concerning homebuyers and attached assets and conduct valuations whenever directed.
However, the Court deliberately stopped short of authorising the Committee to immediately sell those assets.
At this stage, its role concerning attached properties is essentially identification, status verification and valuation.
Further directions regarding individual assets may be passed after the legal status of those properties becomes clearer.
7. CIRP Proceedings Remain Independent
The High Court expressly protected the jurisdiction of the insolvency process.
It clarified that it was not interfering with the ongoing CIRP under the IBC.
Accordingly, the IRP would have no role before the newly constituted Monitoring Committee.
Equally important, participation in the Committee’s process will not prejudice or extinguish any right or entitlement that a homebuyer may possess in the CIRP.
Thus, the Court kept the PMLA/restitution track and IBC/CIRP track institutionally separate.
8. Money Transferred to Greenopolis Monitoring Committee Account
For the Committee’s functioning, ED was directed to open an account in a nationalised bank titled:
“Account-Greenopolis Monitoring Committee.”
The Court directed transfer of money lying in two identified accounts—one belonging to 3C Shelters at Axis Bank and another being the OIPL Greenopolis Project RERA Escrow Account at ICICI Bank—to the Committee account.
ED was directed to complete the transfer within one week.
9. Eight-Month Timeline
The Monitoring Committee is expected to complete its assigned role within eight months from the date it first convenes.
It must also file a report concerning its functioning every three months.
This creates a court-supervised verification mechanism rather than permitting competing parties to independently deal with disputed assets.
Precedent Analysis
Rose Valley Real Estates & Constructions Ltd. v. State of West Bengal was significant to the Court’s approach. ED relied upon the Calcutta High Court’s constitution of a former Judge-led committee to take control of properties and facilitate restitution to defrauded investors. GREENOPOLIS
M.P.S. Greenery Developers Ltd. v. Bhaskar Dasgupta was similarly relied upon to demonstrate use of constitutional jurisdiction to establish a committee for management and restitution of assets to affected claimants. GREENOPOLIS
Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, (1984) 3 SCC 161 was cited for the breadth of constitutional jurisdiction and the inherent ability of constitutional courts to appoint commissions or similar mechanisms where necessary to secure legal rights. GREENOPOLIS
The High Court, however, did not finally decide the broader proposition that Article 226 independently permits it to bypass the procedural restrictions contained in Rule 3A of the PMLA Restoration Rules. It considered that determination unnecessary at the present stage.
Court’s Reasoning
The judgment adopts a two-stage approach.
First, the Court rejected the earlier route of releasing and liquidating attached assets immediately under the Special Court’s order dated 27 November 2025.
Second, rather than leaving hundreds of homebuyers to continue litigating through fragmented proceedings, it created a neutral fact-finding and verification mechanism.
The Court considered it necessary first to establish:
who the genuine homebuyers are, how much each actually paid, what assets ED has attached, who claims ownership of those assets, what those assets are worth, and whether the attachments remain legally operative.
Only once that factual picture emerges would further directions concerning restitution and the attached properties appropriately be considered.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court set aside the Special PMLA Court’s order dated 27 November 2025 directing release of attached assets for restitution.
It also recalled the High Court’s interim orders dated 3 January and 21 January 2026.
At the same time, recognising the prolonged hardship of Greenopolis homebuyers, the Court established an independent Monitoring Committee headed by former Chief Justice of India Justice Sanjiv Khanna to verify genuine homebuyers and their payments and compile the complete status and valuation of ED-attached assets.
The Court deliberately did not order immediate liquidation of the attached properties. Further restitution directions are to await a comprehensive factual picture.
ED was also directed to seek expeditious disposal of pending challenges concerning its attachment orders.
Case Details
Lead Case: Directorate of Enforcement v. Greenopolis Welfare Confederation & Anr.
Connected Matters: CRL.REV.P. 87/2026 filed by Greenopolis Welfare Association and W.P.(CRL) 2/2026 filed by Greenopolis Welfare Confederation. GREENOPOLIS GREENOPOLIS
Court: Delhi High Court
Case No.: CRL.REV.P. 37/2026 & connected matters
CNR No.: DLHC010013512026 GREENOPOLIS
Judge: Justice A.J. Bhambhani GREENOPOLIS
Reserved On: 9 September 2026
Pronounced On: 29 September 2026 GREENOPOLIS
Result: Special PMLA Court’s restitution order dated 27 November 2025 set aside; earlier interim orders recalled; no immediate liquidation of attached properties; former CJI Sanjiv Khanna-led Monitoring Committee constituted to verify genuine homebuyers, claims and attached assets; ED’s and GWA’s criminal revision petitions disposed of in those terms; W.P.(CRL) 2/2026 re-notified separately.
