Gurugram roads only 4-5 metres wide in most inspected stretches, HC told in stilt-plus-four PIL

According to the report, while certain roads had a wall-to-wall width of 10 to 12 metres, the motorable metalled portion in most cases was between 4 and 4.8 metres. Specific stretches measured included 4.5 metres in DLF Phase 1 (A31), 4.6 metres (A41 and A36), 4.5 to 4.8 metres on market roads, 3.9 metres in one stretch of Sector 28, and 4 metres on another 10-metre-wide road where the usable carriageway was substantially reduced.

Sharma told the bench that across the seven to eight sites visited, the effective motorable width did not exceed 4 to 5 metres. She added that photographs placed on record showed cars parked on both sides of the roads, along with encroachments such as planters, green patches fenced with barbed wire, and metal structures. “Even two cars cannot pass simultaneously on these stretches,” she submitted, contending that the functional width was often less than four metres.

The bench said the report would be taken on record.

Sharma further submitted that additional photographs from other blocks, not visited by the commission, showed even narrower lanes with four to six-storey structures. She argued that in the event of a fire or natural disaster, emergency services would find it “impossible” to access such buildings.

Referring to the fire safety regime, Sharma cited provisions of the Haryana Building Code, 2017, as amended, permitting residential plotted buildings up to 16.5 metres in height (stilt plus four floors). She argued that the amendment aligned the requirement of a no-objection certificate with the Haryana Fire Services Act, 2009, raising the threshold from 15 metres to 16.5 metres. This, she contended, diluted the safeguards envisaged under the National Building Code of India.

She submitted that in the absence of adequate road width, spacing between buildings and requisite equipment, fire-fighting services could not effectively cater to structures of 16.5 metres. “This is a very serious default,” she argued.

The petitioner’s counsel also assailed the state’s self-certification regime for occupation certificates, under which architects certify completion and authorities issue occupation certificates without prior physical verification. Citing a departmental audit, she alleged that over 7,500 illegal constructions existed in DLF Phases 1 to 4 and attributed this to weak enforcement and a system that allowed blacklisted architects to resume practice upon payment of a penalty.

Sharma further relied on findings of an expert committee, which, she said, recorded that Gurugram’s infrastructure was designed in the 1990s and did not envisage the present population density. She contended that the enhanced floor area ratio (FAR), now up to 265 in certain cases as against 100 or 145 earlier depending on plot size, had significantly increased density without corresponding augmentation of infrastructure such as roads, water supply, sewage and traffic management.

She told the bench that she was pressing only for interim relief in the present petition, stating that larger issues concerning monitoring, infrastructure augmentation and regulation would require detailed consideration.

After hearing the submissions on interim relief, the bench directed the parties to file written submissions within two weeks.