CWP-PIL-212-2024 (O&M) -1-
SUNIL SINGH VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER
Present: Ms. Nivedita Sharma, Advocate, (Arguing Counsel)
(Through Video Conferencing)
Mr. Shehbaz Thind, Advocate,
and Mr. Sultan Singh, Advocate,
for the petitioner (in CWP-PIL-212-2024 & CWP-9115-2021).
Mr. Sarthak Gupta, Advocate, (Arguing Counsel)
and Ms. Sanya Shangari, Advocate,
for the petitioner (in CWP-15530-2021).
Mr. Samarth Sagar, Advocate, (Arguing Counsel)
and Mr. Sankalp Sagar, Advocate,
for the petitioner (in CWP-PIL-91-2025).
Mr. Ankur Mittal, Senior Advocate, (Arguing Counsel)
with Mr. Pradeep S. Chahar, Senior DAG, Haryana,
Mr. Saurabh Mago, DAG, Haryana,
and Ms. Kushaldeep Kaur, Advocate,
for respondent-State of Haryana.
Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, Senior Advocate,
(Arguing Counsel)
with Mr. Mukul Aggarwal, Advocate,
Mr. Vibhor Bansal, Advocate,
and Mr. Ishank Bansal, Advocate,
for respondent Nos.10 to 30 (in CWP-9115-2021).
Mr. Anil Chawla, Advocate,
for respondent No.4 (in CWP-9115-2021).
Mr. Ashish Chopra, Senior Advocate,
(Arguing Counsel)
with Mr. Abhishek Kansal, Advocate,
and Mr. Gagandeep Singh, Advocate,
for respondent Nos.10 and 11 (in CWP-9115-2021).
Mr. Arvind Seth, Advocate, (Arguing Counsel)
for respondent-HSVP (in CWP-14637-2021).
Mr. Manish Dadwal, Advocate,
for M.C., Gurugram (in CWP-9115-2021).
Mr. Shivansh Sood, Advocate,
for respondent No.5 (in CWP-9115-2021).
***
AJAY PRASHER
2026.04.02 14:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-PIL-212-2024 (O&M) -2-
1. This matter, on the last occasion i.e. 17.02.2026, was
partly heard and is now listed for advancement of further
arguments on 08.04.2026.
2. During the aforesaid status of this case, when part
arguments are yet to be advanced, this Court is persuaded by
the order of the Apex Court dated 28.07.2025 passed in Special
Leave to Appeal (C) No.212 of 2024, Sunil Singh vs. State of
Haryana and another, (preferred by the petitioner herein),
wherein it was observed as under:-
“We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
We dispose of this Special Leave Petition by reserving
liberty to the petitioner herein to make submissions
on the interim relief(s) sought for in the original Public
Interest Litigation before the High Court.
For ease of reference, the interim reliefs sought for
by the petitioner herein are extracted as under-
“1. Issue on interim order, staying the operation of
the impugned notification dated 02.07.2024, and any
further approvals for Stilt + 4 constructions in
Gurugram, until the completion of comprehensive
infrastructure audits and necessary augmentation as
recommended by the Expert Committee.
2. Issue an interim injunction, restraining the
Respondents from granting occupancy certificates (OC)
for Stilt + 4 constructions in Gurugram until the existing
infrastructure, including water supply systems,
sewage treatment, drainage, and road networks, is
upgraded to adequately handle the increased load
caused by such constructions.
3. Appoint an Independent committee, headed by a
retired judge of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, to oversee
AJAY PRASHER
2026.04.02 14:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-PIL-212-2024 (O&M) -3-
and monitor compliance with court orders the issue of
illegal constructions and environmental degradation.
4. Direct the Respondents to hald any further illegal
construction arising under the Stilt + 4 policy, including
those violating approved layout plans, setbacks, and
height restrictions, misusing the approved plans until
this Hon’ble Court has examined the legality of such
constructions.
5. Issue directions to the Respondents, particularly the
Department of Town and Country Planning (DTCP), to
freeze all new applications for Stilt + 4 constructions.
6. Any other interim relief that this Hon’ble Court
deems fit and proper in the interest of justice, public
safety, and environmental sustainability.”
It is needless to observe that the High Court would
consider the interim reliefs sought for by the
petitioner herein on their own merits and pass an
order in that regard.
At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that the matter is now listed before the
High Court on 30.10.2025 and there is urgency in the
matter.
In the circumstances, we permit the petitioner to
move the High Court for expeditious listing of the
matter in the month of August, 2025.
Pending application(s) shall stand disposed of.”
3. With the consent of learned counsel for the rival
parties, this Court proceeds to decide the question of interim
relief, as prayed for by the petitioner, which is to the following
effect:-
“1. Issue an interim order, staying the operation of
the impugned notification dated 02.07.2024, and any
further approvals for Stilt + 4 constructions in
AJAY PRASHER Gurugram, until the completion of comprehensive
2026.04.02 14:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-PIL-212-2024 (O&M) -4-
infrastructure audits and necessary augmentation as
recommended by the Expert Committee.
2. Issue an interim injunction, restraining the
Respondents from granting occupancy certificates
(OC) for Stilt + 4 constructions in Gurugram until the
existing infrastructure, including water supply
systems, sewage treatment, drainage, and road
networks, is upgraded to adequately handle the
increased load caused by such constructions.
3. Appoint an independent committee, headed
by a retired judge of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, to
oversee and monitor compliance with court orders the
issue of illegal constructions and environmental
degradation.
4. Direct the Respondents to hald any further
illegal construction arising under the Stilt + 4 policy,
including those violating approved layout plans,
setbacks, and height restrictions, misusing the
approved plans until this Hon’ble Court has examined
the legality of such constructions.
5. Issue directions to Respondents, particularly
the Department of Town and Country Planning
(DTCP), to freeze all new applications for Stilt + 4
constructions.
6. Any other interim relief that this Hon’bel
Court deems fit and proper in the interest of justice,
public safety, and environmental sustainability.”
4. This Court is conscious of the fact that vide order
dated 19.03.2025, this Court had rejected the prayer for interim
relief on the ground of claim of interim relief being akin to the
final relief. More so, another order was passed on 20.06.2025 by
this Court in the present case, where CM-135-CWPIL-2025
seeking interim relief for restraining the respondents from
AJAY PRASHER
2026.04.02 14:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-PIL-212-2024 (O&M) -5-
cutting trees, was also declined on the ground that no such
relief has been sought in the present petition. The aforesaid
order dated 20.06.2025 was challenged in Special Leave to
Appeal (C) No.19427 of 2025, which was disposed of vide order
dated 28.07.2025 permitting the petitioner to move this Court
for expeditious listing of the matter in the month of August,
2025, by observing that this Court was to consider the interim
reliefs sought for by the petitioner on their own merits and pass
an order in that regard.
5. After the aforesaid order of the Apex Court dated
28.07.2025 was produced before this Court, the date for hearing
of the case was preponed to 01.09.2025 by order dated
11.08.2025.
5.1. Arguments, thereafter, were made on 27.10.2025 but
the same remained incomplete, whereafter the matter was
placed for hearing remaining arguments on 28.10.2025,
29.10.2025, 30.10.2025, 31.10.2025, 03.11.2025, 06.11.2025,
12.11.2025, 19.11.2025, 01.12.2025, 18.12.2025, 27.01.2026,
29.01.2026, 17.02.2026, 11.03.2026, 17.03.2026 and lastly the
case was listed on 24.03.2026 when the final arguments
remained inconclusive and the case is now to be taken up on
08.04.2026 to hear the remaining arguments, which have bleak
possibility of being concluded on the said date.
6. Due to the aforesaid delay, which has been caused in
advancing arguments by counsel for the rival parties, the
AJAY PRASHER
2026.04.02 14:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-PIL-212-2024 (O&M) -6-
petitioner has insisted for grant of interim relief as prayed for
(supra).
7. Pertinently, during the course of advancement of final
arguments in the present case, this Court on 29.01.2026, on
behest of the petitioner, took note of the photographs appended
along with written submissions made by the petitioner, which
prima facie showed the internal roads of Sector 28, DLF,
Phase-I, Gurugram to be as narrow as approximately 12-15 feet
wide. This impelled this Court to constitute a Commission
consisting of Additional Advocate General, Haryana, or his
nominee; learned counsel for the petitioner and the Secretary,
District Legal Services Authority, Gurugram, to carry out
physical inspection in regard to the prescribed width of the
internal roads of Sector 28, DLF, Phase-I, Gurugram and the
actual available width of the internal roads for plying of traffic.
The report that was submitted after the inspection by the said
Commission was to the following effect:-
PLOT NO. ROAD WIDTH MOTORABLE/METALLED
(Wall to Wall of ROAD AREA
the Houses)
A-30/9, DLF 12 mtr. 4.5 mtr.
Phase-I,
Gurugram
A-41/25, DLF 12 mtr. 4.6 mtr.
Phase-I,
Gurugram.
A-36-19, DLF 12 mtr. 4.6 mtr.
Phase-I
Gurugram
1, Market 12 mtr. 4.5 mtr.
Road, DLF
Phase-I,
Gurugram
5. Market 12 mtr. 4.8 mtr.
Road, DLF
AJAY PRASHER
2026.04.02 14:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-PIL-212-2024 (O&M) -7-
Phase-I,
Gurugram
148, Sector- 10 mtr. 3.9 mtr.
28, Gurugram
94P, Sector- 10 mtr. 4.0 mtr.
28,
Gurugram.
As per the measurement, it has been observed that
measurement of the road from the wall to wall of the Houses
including ramps, sewage, big trees, green belt and electricity
poles as depicted in the photographs attached is either 12 mtr.
and/or 10 mtr. Whereas, the average motorable road of 12 mtr.
has shrunk to 4.5 mtr. and that of the 10 mtr. to 4.0 mtr.”
8. The aforesaid inspection report essentially revealed
that the prescribed width of the internal roads of Sector 28, DLF
Phase-I, Gurugram, is either 10 mtrs. or 12 mtrs. (boundary
wall of the private plot on one side to the boundary wall of the
private plot on the other side). As against the aforesaid
prescribed width, the motorable road area available for plying of
traffic and pedestrians is only 3.9 mtrs. to 4.8 mtrs.
8.1. This shrinkage is attributed to various reasons, which
essentially are lack of adequate infrastructure of sanitations &
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.
9. Coming back to the interim prayer made by the
petitioner, it is seen that stay of (Annexure P-6) issued by the
Additional Chief Secretary, Government of Haryana, Town and
Country Planning Department, Haryana, has been sought for.
AJAY PRASHER
2026.04.02 14:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-PIL-212-2024 (O&M) -8-
9.1. Annexure P-6 is the notification/order dated
02.07.2024 approving stilt + 4 floors on residential plots instead
of earlier permissible limit of stilt + 3 floors, with certain terms
and conditions, including allowing of composition policy for
construction of stilt + 4 floors even in cases where building
plans have not been approved. It is stated, in this notification,
that permission would be granted in all such cases within 90
days of the receipt of application for composition of offence,
subject to recovery of composition charges @ 10 times the rate
prescribed for construction raised without approval of building
plans.
9.2. It is further alleged by learned counsel for the
petitioner that while passing the impugned order dated
02.07.2024 (Annexure P-6), the Government should have
considered the report in respect of stilt + 4 floors policy
submitted by the Expert Committee, chaired by P. Raghavendra
Rao, Chairman, Pollution Control Board, Haryana; Former Chief
Town Planner, Haryana and Member HRERA, Panchkula; Chief
Town Planner, HSIIDC and Senior Town Planner, HSVP & TCP,
where it was recommended, in clear terms that firstly, a
Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for conducting
‘Infrastructure Capacity Audit’ of the block/sector/area/colony
should be prepared for conducting the said “Audit” and only
thereafter, the said proposal of stilt + 4 floors policy can be
adopted. The relevant extract of the said report is as follows:
AJAY PRASHER
2026.04.02 14:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-PIL-212-2024 (O&M) -9-
“8.1 Construction of Stilt + 4 Floors (S+4 floors)
on residential plots of new/upcoming
sectors/colonies/areas
Construction of S+4 floors on residential plots of
new (undeveloped) upcoming sectors/colonies/areas,
may be permitted as per the S+4 floors policy, where
the commensurate infrastructure/service plans have
already been designed or are being laid down or can
be provided, considering density of 18 persons per
plot, with provision for laying of adequate
infrastructure.
8.2 Construction of Stilt+4 Floors on residential
plots of existing sectors/colonies/areas
As per physical and social infrastructure
planned/laid down in the existing developed
sectors/colonies/areas may not have been designed
to cater to the increased density on account of
construction of S+4 floors, construction of S+4 floors
on residential plots may only be permitted in
identified blocks of existing sectors/colonies/areas
which are:
1. Bounded by roads of 12 m or above width (all
the plots must abut 12 m and above road
width); and
2. Which have existing commensurate
infrastructure or potential to build
commensurate infrastructure to cater to
increased population density on account of
construction of S+4 floors.
For grant of new permission for construction of
S+4 floors constructions on residential plots of
existing sectors/colony/areas, the following procedure
is recommended:
i. The concerned Agency/Department/Authority,
under whose jurisdiction the particular
AJAY PRASHER
2026.04.02 14:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-PIL-212-2024 (O&M) -10-
sector/colony/area/block falls, shall firstly
prepare a Standard Operating Procedure
(SOP) for conducting ‘Infrastructure
Capacity Audit’ of the
block/sector/area/colony.
ii. Based on the formulated SOP, the concerned
Agency/Department/Authority shall prepare
a detailed Infrastructure Capacity Audit
Report of the identified
block/sector/area/colony, preferably within
a period of 3 months.
The Infrastructure Capacity Audit for any
identified block/sector/area/colony shall specifically
highlight the following:
a. Present availability of water supply,
sewerage, drainage, power, parking and fire-
safety, etc. and estimated population level to
which the existing infrastructure can cater;
b. Potential to augment infrastructure to cater to
the increased population density to be
generated if S+4 floors are permitted;
c. Specific components to be upgraded,
alongwith estimated budgetary requirement
and tentative timelines, for infrastructure
enhancement.
(iii) Based on the Infrastructure Capacity Audit
Report, proposals for the
blocks/sectors/areas/colonies found eligible for
construction of S+4 floors by the respective agencies
shall be sent for approval to the Deputy
Commissioner (DC) of the concerned district or any
senior officer nominated by the State Government, by an
officer not below rank of Administrator, HSVP or officer
nominated by him (in case of HSVP plots and private
licensed colonies); MD, HSIIDC or officer nominated by
AJAY PRASHER
2026.04.02 14:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-PIL-212-2024 (O&M) -11-
him (in case of HSIIDC areas) and District Municipal
Commissioner (in case of municipal areas).
(iv) Upon receipt of such proposals, the DC/senior officer
nominated by the State Government shall get the
infrastructure capacity audit report verified by a team of
technical experts drawn from departments/agencies such as
PWD (B&R), Public Health, Irrigation, PCB, power distribution
company, Metropolitan Development Authority, etc.
v. If the DC/senior officer nominated by the State
Government, is satisfied that the infrastructure of identified
block/sector/area/colony is sufficient or can be augmented by
ensuring no major public inconvenience and disturbance to
the existing habitat, he/she may approve the proposal,
preferably within 2 months, and thereafter, the same be
ratified by competent authority of the concerned
Agency/Department/Authority.
vi. Permissions for S+4 floors shall be granted thereafter,
only if:
a. Commensurate infrastructure has been certified to be
available to the satisfaction of concerned
Agency/Department/Authority and DC/senior officer
nominated by the State Government, as stated above,
or
b. Required infrastructure augmentation is initiated by
the concerned Agency/Department/Authority, as per
the approved proposal, as stated above.”
10. A bare perusal of the report of Expert Committee
reveals that the aforesaid concern was that in the absence of
any infrastructural back-up, any permission to increase the
number of floors would lead to additional burden over the
existing infrastructure of the city of Gurugram, which is on the
verge of crumbling with increased use by a larger population
(residing in the 4th floor) without adequate available
infrastructural capacity, such as sewage, drainage, STP,
congestion of traffic and pedestrians on road and internal roads,
AJAY PRASHER
2026.04.02 14:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-PIL-212-2024 (O&M) -12-
flooding of various low lying areas (which has become a common
feature of Gurugram city) etc.
11. 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. State and its functionaries turning a
Nelson’s eye towards the desperate shortage of infrastructural
requirement in Gurugram city have given a go by to the all
important aspect of conducting “INFRASTRUCTURE CAPACITY
AUDIT” before implementing the stilt + 4 policy. It thus, seems
that the State has abdicated its constitutional duty of ensuring
clean and healthy urban environment for the citizens of
Gurugram.
12. Since, the arguments are taking long time to conclude
for reasons attributed to the counsel for the rival parties, it is
deemed appropriate by this Court, at this stage, without
commenting on the validity of the impugned order/notification
dated 02.07.2024 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Additional Chief
Secretary, Government of Haryana, Town and Country Planning
Department, Haryana, to restrain the State from going ahead with
the ‘stilt + 4 floor Policy’ for the residential plots and to stay the
effect and operation of the impugned order/notification (Annexure
P-6) for the time being, till the next date of hearing.
(SHEEL NAGU)
CHIEF JUSTICE
(SANJIV BERRY)
JUDGE
02.04.2026
Ajay Prasher
AJAY PRASHER
2026.04.02 14:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document