1. If the clubhouse or any promised public amenity is not built by the builder how can they ask or force buyers to pay for it, they don't even possess the permissions from the local authorities for the same.
The builder cannot demand payment for the non-existent or for a facility promised by sale agreement is not at all in sight. This is absolutely unjustified and illegal on the part of the builder. The residents/buyers can demand the permission by the authorities for the club house and that too as per the original approved plan shown at the time entering into the agreement.
2. Does it really require a special permission separately from the local authorities when the builder already has permissions to build the complex and the PA land is supposed to be used for creation of amenities?
It is not so. The builder is trying to make a mockery of the agreement. If there was a mention about the club house and other facilities in the sale agreement, the builder has to make the facilities available before handing over the possession and occupancy certificate. This is a flimsy excuse he renders. Moreover, if he is not building the club house then the vacant space called common area is o be handed over to the association. The builder cannot have a club house at a far off place when he has an approved plan providing the club house in this premises.
3. Can a builder sell same clubhouse or other amenities to the buyers of other project, as we signed on the Buyers Agreement for DLF Maiden Heights so whatever is agreed by us in the agreement is only in the name of Maiden Heights under the belief that everything will be owned by the Owners/Buyers association of Maiden Heights only. Is not the builder cheating with buyer of both the projects by selling same property to two different parties?
This is absolutely a fraud played by the builder on the buyers, it should not be accepted by the buyers and they can take legal action against the builder and even can highlight this issue in the press media clearly mentioning the fraudulent ways of constructing the apartments by the so called reputed builder where the buyers are ultimately cheated without providing them the agreed facilities.
During the meeting with the DLF last week the representative rudely replied to this question that "We have mentioned in the Agreement a clubhouse will be given and we never said that it cannot be outside the premises or will be owned by owners of Maiden Heights or Woodland Heights."
This attitude can be viewed very seriously by the buyers. They cannot behave that way to the buyers.
In fact there is settled case favoring your situation before the consumer forum:
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, AP State
1. Mrs C.Sita Prasad W/O ... vs M/S Lodha Healthy Construction & ... on 25 November, 2013 CC No.107 OF 2012
this judgment is a settled law to be cited as reference. You can approach the consumer form for getting your grievances redressed.