Gurugram Oberoi 360 North Project Faces Extended No-Allotment Order Till September 25
Gurugram, Haryana | September 18, 2026: Prospective buyers looking at the Oberoi 360 North luxury housing project in Gurugram will have to wait as the Punjab and Haryana High Court has extended its interim direction restraining any further allotments until September 25.
The order keeps new allotments on hold while the court continues examining a petition filed by Advance India Projects Ltd (AIPL) challenging a decision of Haryana's Department of Town and Country Planning (DTCP). The latest order does not decide the legality of the project or the underlying allegations.
What the High Court Ordered
A division bench of Justices Rajesh Bhardwaj and Puja Chopra extended the interim protection originally issued on July 7.
Under the direction, no further allotment can be made in the project until the next hearing.
The matter has now been listed for September 25.
The court's latest direction is interim in nature and does not amount to a final ruling on the dispute between the parties.
Why the Allotment Halt Matters to Buyers
The order directly affects prospective allottees because new allotments cannot proceed while the interim direction remains in force.
For buyers considering the project, the immediate issue is therefore not a finding that the project is illegal, but the uncertainty surrounding the ongoing regulatory and legal dispute.
Existing and prospective buyers should distinguish between the court's temporary restriction and any final determination on project approvals, development rights or ownership-related claims.
What AIPL Has Challenged
AIPL's petition challenges the actions of the DTCP director and other respondents in relation to the development and regulatory approvals connected with the project.
According to AIPL, the DTCP director's August 17 order was not consistent with directions previously issued by the High Court on July 7.
The company has also argued that the dispute involves the rights of existing and prospective allottees and has sought continuation of the restriction on further allotments.
Respondents Dispute Continuation of the Protection
The respondents opposed AIPL's request to continue the interim protection.
Their counsel argued that AIPL had an alternative legal remedy available to challenge the DTCP decision and also contended that the August 17 order had not been challenged through the appropriate process.
After considering the submissions, the court chose to continue the interim direction until the next hearing.
What Is the Dispute Over the 14.816-Acre Site
The wider dispute concerns a 14.816-acre land parcel in Sector 58, Gurugram, where a residential development with a commercial component is proposed.
AIPL has raised allegations concerning the grant and subsequent transfer of the development licence, including claims relating to the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975, transfer of development rights and foreign direct investment requirements.
AIPL has sought a stay on a licence issued on May 12, 2025, as well as a subsequent order dated June 17, 2025, approving the transfer of the development licence to another developer.
The company has also claimed rights over the project and sought cancellation of a sale deed executed in favour of Oberoi Realty.
These are allegations forming part of AIPL's case and have not been adjudicated in the latest order.
What Homebuyers Should Check
Anyone considering a purchase in the project should keep track of the next court hearing and the status of allotments before making decisions based on current availability.
Buyers should also independently verify the project's applicable approvals, licence status, allotment terms and payment obligations rather than treating the interim court order as a final determination of the project's legal status.
What Happens Next
The immediate deadline is September 25, when the High Court is scheduled to hear the matter again.
Until then, the no-further-allotment direction remains in place.
The next proceedings could provide greater clarity on AIPL's challenge to the DTCP's August 17 decision, but the September 16 order itself does not determine the underlying ownership, approval or regulatory disputes involving the project.