Stay on S+4 building policy: Haryana govt ‘prepares to challenge’ HC order, demolition drive in Gurgaon on hold

The S+4 policy, introduced by the Haryana government in 2023, allowed construction of four independent floors above a stilt parking level on residential plots in Gurgaon. The move led to a surge in redevelopment, particularly in older sectors, but also triggered widespread complaints from residents over increased population density, parking shortages, strain on civic infrastructure, and alleged violations of building norms.

The Supreme Court (SC), meanwhile, on Monday declined to intervene in the ongoing anti-encroachment drive in Gurgaon, observing that since the HC was overseeing the matter to prevent unauthorised construction, the apex court should not “cause hindrance” in its work.

It was hearing a petition filed by the residents of Sector 31 seeking urgent intervention against the demolitions.

In a Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed through advocate Mandeep Kalra, residents alleged that authorities had “maliciously weaponised” the HC’s April 2 interim order to bypass statutory procedures and initiate a “draconian” city-wide demolition drive.

Acting on a batch of petitions, the HC had on April 2 stayed the S+4 building policy, observing that unregulated implementation could adversely impact urban infrastructure.

The residents alleged that under the guise of implementing the HC’s interim observations regarding infrastructural strain, the Additional Chief Secretary (Town & Country Planning), issued a directive on April 16, wrongly interpreting the interim stay as a blanket mandate to immediately demolish boundary walls, ramps and green areas across 29 sectors.

The petitioners flagged that nearly 1,500 families, many of whom have resided in Sector 31 for the last 30-35 years, would be affected. They submitted that the residents were not parties to the original Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed in connection to the policy.

Hearing the matter, the SC bench said, “On oral mentioning, the matter is taken on board. The Special Leave Petition, being against an interim order, is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to make an urgent mentioning before the High Court during the course of the day. We request the hon’ble Chief Justice to entertain the oral mentioning either at 1 o’clock or immediately after lunch.”

Appearing for the petitioners, senior advocate Gopal Sanakaranarayanan said the municipal authorities had misconstrued a HC order without giving notice to the residents. “Demolitions are taking place of our compound walls, trees are going,” the counsel said.

The CJI, however, asked why the SC should intervene if the HC is performing its constitutional duty to remove encroachments. “Suppose these are all unauthorised constructions… In Gurugram, we have a fair idea. If the High Court is doing a constitutional duty, taking a drive to prevent or dismantle unauthorised construction, then as the apex body, why should we cause hindrance in the High Court’s work?” CJI Kant asked.

Sankaranayanan said, “The High Court did not say anything on demolition. The problem is misconstruing that (order), without any notice to any individual.” He added that the “demolitions are happening right outside their compound walls and on their compound walls, without notice”. The counsel asserted that “these are completely legal constructions”.

With the SC not inclined to stay the drive, Sankaranarayanan urged the bench to maintain the status quo for at least a couple of days to allow them time to move HC.

However, the SC declined the request, saying that passing such an order could lead to complications. It observed that since the petitioners argued that the HC order was being misinterpreted, the appropriate forum to address any such issue was the HC itself.

While hearing the matter later in the day, the HC declined to stay the demolitions but directed that proper notice must be served, clarifying that its earlier order would operate prospectively with respect to the S+4 building policy.