Stilt+4 policy halt in Haryana: Over 300 projects in Gurugram, Faridabad stuck as High Court flags infrastructure collapse
The High Court raised serious concerns that the state was prioritising revenue over public safety
In a major setback to developers and property owners, the Haryana Department of Town and Country Planning (DTCP) has suspended all approvals under the stilt-plus-four (S+4) floor policy following an interim stay by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, freezing over 300 pending applications across Gurugram and Faridabad.
The April 3 directive has instructed all urban local bodies and the Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran (HSVP) to immediately halt fresh permissions and occupancy certificates for such constructions, effectively bringing ongoing and proposed projects to a standstill.
The High Court, while intervening, raised serious concerns that the state was prioritising revenue over public safety, warning that unchecked densification without a comprehensive infrastructure audit could push the already ‘crumbling’ civic systems of key urban centres beyond breaking point.
The policy, which has long remained contentious, was initially introduced to address rising housing demand but faced suspension in early 2023 after strong opposition from Resident Welfare Associations (RWAs). It was later reinstated through a July 2, 2024, notification based on recommendations of an expert committee led by P Raghavendra Rao.
However, the court has now observed that critical recommendations — particularly those related to infrastructure augmentation—were largely overlooked. It flagged alarming ground realities, including the ’shrinkage’ of motorable road space, noting that roads originally planned at 10-12 metres have, in several cases, reduced to barely 4-5 metres due to rampant construction and encroachments.
The impact of the stay is most severe in Gurugram, which accounts for the highest number of pending applications. In DLF Phases 1, 2, 3 and 4—among the worst-affected areas—internal roads designed for 10-12 metres have reportedly shrunk to less than 5 metres of usable space.
Similarly, several HSVP sectors, including 15, 17, 21, 22, 23, 27, 28, 31, 40 and 46 have ongoing constructions or pending regularisation under the 2024 policy that now stand stalled. Rapid vertical expansion in Sushant Lok 1, 2 and 3 has already triggered water shortages and sewage overflows, issues that were cited in court petitions. High-end residential pockets such as Suncity and Nirvana Country are also facing a freeze on pending occupancy certificates.
Faridabad presents a similar picture, particularly in its central and northern sectors where infrastructure has struggled to keep pace with vertical growth. Prime residential sectors, including 14, 15, 16 and 17 have seen aggressive push for fourth-floor additions due to high land values, while sectors 21A, 21B, 21C and 28 have witnessed widespread ‘apartmentalisation’ of independent plots, straining sanitation systems.
In Greenfield Colony, that's already grappling with weak civic amenities, residents have welcomed the stay as a necessary intervention.
The divide among stakeholders remains sharp.
Narender Yadav, President of the Home Developer Association, said, “This housing policy is the need of the hour owing to the rapidly growing population and the soaring housing needs of Gurugram and Faridabad,” adding that the suspension has caused significant financial losses and that vertical growth remains essential in land-scarce cities.
In contrast, Rakesh Jinsi, President of RWA Sector 17A, supported the court’s move, stating, “The current infrastructure be it sewage, drainage or water supply simply cannot support this level of density. These S+4 buildings are being misused as multi-apartment setups, turning quiet residential streets into congested zones. Without upgrading the infrastructure first, this policy is a recipe for urban disaster.”
With the High Court mandating a sector-wise Infrastructure Capacity Audit before any further approvals, the S+4 policy has effectively entered a ‘dead zone’ across several key neighbourhoods. As legal proceedings continue, the fate of hundreds of projects and the broader question of balancing urban growth with infrastructure readiness remains uncertain.
