‘Stilt+4’ on trial: High Court told 2,000 notices issued in Gurugram

The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Monday was told that authorities have issued around 2,000 notices in Gurugram for covering of stilt areas, with nearly 500 restoration orders already passed with the crackdown gathering pace.

As the matter came up for resumed hearing, the Bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry made it clear that the matter had reached the stage of final adjudication and that the entire “stilt-plus-four” policy would be tested on the touchstone of the ongoing public interest litigation. “The entire stilt-plus-four policy is subject to the outcome of the PIL,” the Bench asserted.

In a related development, the Bench refused to extend Gurugram-like restraint orders to Panchkula while taking up an application seeking similar curbs. The applicant had argued that Panchkula was going the Gurugram way and pressed for the appointment of a commission to conduct inspections.

The court expressed its disinclination to intervene at the current stage, while making it clear that the legality and impact of the policy itself were under comprehensive examination. The applicant did not press the petition further in view of the court’s stand.

The proceedings also saw a broader debate unfold, with issues relating to the environmental and social fallout of the stilt-plus-four construction model coming under scrutiny. Concerns over urban congestion, structural alterations, and the cumulative impact on civic infrastructure were flagged during the course of arguments.

The Bench on a previous date of hearing had held that the State had apparently prioritized revenue over public safety while ignoring basic infrastructure realities. Coming down heavily on the State’s approach, the Bench had asserted: “It appears that the State of Haryana merely to earn more revenue has put the safety and security of members of general public at stake.”

The Bench had added that the State and its functionaries gave a go by to the all the “important aspect of conducting `infrastructure capacity audit’ before implementing the stilt + 4 policy” while turning a Nelson’s eye towards the desperate shortage of infrastructural requirement in Gurugram city.

“It thus seems that the State has abdicated its constitutional duty of ensuring clean and healthy urban environment for the citizens of Gurugram,” the Bench had added.

Among other things, the PIL-petitioner had challenged notification dated July 2, 2024, issued by the Additional Chief Secretary, Town and Country Planning Department. It permitted the construction of stilt plus four floors on residential plots—raising the earlier cap of stilt plus three floors—and also introduced a composition mechanism even where building plans had not been approved.

A crucial factor that had weighed with the court was the stark mismatch between planning norms and ground realities. During final hearing, the Bench took note of photographs prima facie showing narrow internal roads in DLF Phase-I, Sector 28, Gurugram. This led to the appointment of a local commission to verify the actual road width.

The report revealed that while the prescribed width of internal roads was 10 to 12 meters, the “motorable road area available for plying of traffic and pedestrians is only 3.9 meters to 4.8 meters.”  Referring to the causes, the Bench had observed: “This shrinkage is attributed to various reasons, which essentially are lack of adequate infrastructure of sanitations and sewerage, over-population, defective town planning, inadequate garbage disposal, blocking of aquifers by indiscriminate paving of roads, rampant construction activities thereby preventing recharging of ground-water etc.”