The issue originated from public interest litigation (PIL) petitions filed in 2021 by the DLF City Residents Welfare Association and others, who had raised concerns over large-scale unauthorized constructions violating zoning and building laws.
NEW DELHI: 4th April: The Supreme Court of India has directed authorities in Gurgaon to maintain the status quo on planned demolitions and sealing of alleged illegal constructions in DLF Phases 1-5.
The order was issued on Friday by a bench comprising Justices J K Maheshwari and Aravind Kumar.
The court also sought a response from the Haryana state government within four weeks regarding the issue. Additionally, it instructed the residents not to undertake any further construction on the disputed buildings and land.
A police spokesperson had earlier announced that the city police and district administration were prepared to take action against unauthorized constructions, beginning with properties in DLF Phase 3 on Friday.
The enforcement wing of the Department of Town and Country Planning (DTCP) had identified over 4,500 properties violating construction rules across DLF Phases 1-5. Of these, 2,100 were set for immediate demolition or sealing following recommendations from District Town Planner (Enforcement) Amit Madholia.
ALSO READ: SC Stays Criminal Proceedings Against IREO Group MD and Oberoi Realty MD
The Punjab and Haryana High Court had first approved and ordered the demolition drive in February 2025. It had also instructed lower courts to resolve pending cases related to such actions immediately.
The issue originated from public interest litigation (PIL) petitions filed in 2021 by the DLF City Residents Welfare Association and others, who had raised concerns over large-scale unauthorized constructions violating zoning and building laws.
Several homeowners and the Qutab Enclave Residents Welfare Association (RWA) from Sector 26A, DLF Phase 1, challenged the demolition drive before the Supreme Court. Senior Advocate Indira Jaising, along with advocates Anuj Saxena and Durgesh R Gupta, represented them in court.
The petitioners argued that the demolition notices were unlawful since they should have been issued by the Gurugram Municipal Corporation instead of the district administration. They also claimed that they were not given a fair hearing by the high court before such strict orders were passed.
According to Amit Madholia, the Deputy Commissioner of Gurgaon had already approved the recommendation to seal and cut off utilities for the illegal constructions. He stated that the action was being carried out under the Haryana Urban Development Act and the rules of the Town and Country Planning Department.
Madholia also warned that “any uncalled interference with the sealing and demolition process will result in FIRs being filed.”
Baljeet Singh Rathee, president of the Qutab Enclave RWA, welcomed the Supreme Court’s intervention. He stated that his association was fighting for residents who had been living there for decades but were suddenly served with notices without proper hearings.
Gaurav Singla, another RWA member, expressed disappointment with the high court’s approach.
“We are with them (Gurgaon authorities) on that and are against the EWS model where there are several illegal stories,” he said, referring to unauthorized floors built on plots designated for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) housing.
However, Singla emphasized that not all residents should be categorized as illegal occupants. “However, you have to segregate them and cannot deem all of us legacy residents’ homes illegal all at once and come to demolish. We are against those making commercial and liquor shops on 60-yard plots. We are against the harassment of old residents,”
he stated.
Singla also mentioned that the association is looking forward to presenting its case in court.
“We are against those making commercial and liquor shops on 60-yard plots. We are against the harassment of old residents.”
He added that they had not been given a proper opportunity to explain their position so far.
Case Title:
SAHAB RAM vs STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS| Diary No. 15281-2025 (and connected cases)
View Order
