GURUGRAM: On Thursday, the Punjab and Haryana High Court ordered a physical inspection of internal roads in planned residential sectors of Gurugram to assess their actual width and condition. This decision follows a public interest litigation (PIL) challenging Haryana’s stilt-plus-four (S+4) construction policy.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry established a three-member panel to conduct inspections and submit a report in ten days, with the case next scheduled for hearing on February 17. The commission will include an additional advocate general (or nominee), the petitioner’s counsel, and the secretary of the district legal services authority, and is tasked with performing inspections on January 31 and February 1.
The court noted disagreements among parties regarding the actual width of internal roads in Gurgaon’s sectors. Petitioners presented photos and documents claiming that internal roads in areas like DLF-1 are approximately 12-15 feet wide, which they assert does not meet the required standards for planned residential colonies.
They argued that “road” should refer to the motorable carriageway for vehicles, rather than the overall right of way that includes green spaces and service areas. The petitioners raised concerns that narrow carriageways impede the movement of emergency services such as fire tenders and ambulances, posing serious safety risks in densely populated areas.
The issue of road width is critical to the broader PIL against the state policy that allows stilt parking with four additional floors on residential plots. Petitioners allege that this policy has exacerbated builder-floor construction in the city, leading to increased traffic congestion, unauthorized commercial activities in residential areas, parking shortages, and strained civic infrastructure like drainage and sewerage systems.
Additionally, they reported concerns regarding unauthorized ramps, boundary wall extensions, encroachments, and poor enforcement of approved layout plans, which have progressively reduced the available road space. The petitioners claim that vertical development without corresponding infrastructure enhancements has altered the character of planned sectors and undermined safety.
Developer groups and urban planning officials have contested the petitioners’ claims. Narendra Yadav, president of the Gurgaon Home Developers Association, stated that approved guidelines specify road widths of 9, 10, 12, 18, and 24 meters, with the actual motorable portion typically measuring 4 to 9 meters, while the rest accommodates ramps, utilities, and green buffers.
He noted that the measurements between houses generally align with the sanctioned right of way.
Senior town planner Renuka Singh mentioned that service plans for any sector or colony are sanctioned by the Haryana Shahari Vikas Pradhikaran (HSVP) and that road cross-sections are established during the planning phase. She emphasized that occupancy and completion certificates are only granted after confirming that infrastructure complies with approved plans.
Divya Dogra, a senior DTCP official, clarified that the definition of a road includes the whole right of way, not merely the paved surface. “The area between houses on both sides, inclusive of ramps and green zones, forms part of the corridor,” she stated.
The high court remarked that it could not solely rely on opposing submissions and deemed a site inspection necessary to ascertain the facts. The report from the commission is anticipated to influence the court’s final decisions regarding the stilt-plus-four case and may have broader implications for urban planning enforcement in Gurugram and the NCR.
