The Delhi High Court allowed Commander Realtors to substitute land attached by the Enforcement Directorate with other assets, after the agency did not seriously object and the Court imposed ten safeguards.
The Delhi High Court has allowed a developer to substitute land attached under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) with alternate assets of adequate value, subject to detailed conditions protecting the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) [Commander Realtors Private Limited v. Union of India & Ors., 2026-juristway.com-3405-HC(Delhi)-PMLA].
Justice Amit Mahajan heard the writ petition. The attachment arose from a Central Bureau of Investigation case on alleged irregularities in the acquisition, release and licensing of land in Gurgaon. Under Provisional Attachment Order No. 12 of 2024 dated 14 Oct 2024, the Adjudicating Authority on 1 Apr 2025 confirmed attachment of 52.7609 acres valued at about ₹1,759.84 crore.
On a reconciliation directed by the Appellate Tribunal, the ED revised the quantified proceeds of crime from about ₹1,813.74 crore to about ₹1,017.19 crore, a reduction of about ₹796.55 crore. The company sought release of 22.231 acres found releasable and substitution of the remaining licensed land with land at Chaheru, Khajurla and Maheru and other assets.
Counsel for the ED told the Court that the agency had no serious objection to substitution, provided adequate safeguards were imposed. In view of that stand and the limited relief sought, the Court found no impediment.
The conditions require the company to file an affidavit showing clear and marketable title free of encumbrances, declare its relation with the entities owning the offered land, deposit the original title deeds with the ED, furnish an indemnity bond, and hand over possession, subject to its right to challenge the attachment. The substituted land cannot be sold or alienated, and the company must disclose the source of funds used to acquire it to show that it is untainted, and continue to cooperate with the investigation.
The Court made clear that the substitution is without prejudice to the ED’s rights, is not an acknowledgment of the legitimacy of the attached properties, and will not affect the merits of the trial. The petition was allowed in those terms.
2026-juristway.com-3405-HC(Delhi)-PMLA
