REAL ESTATE BLOG by Apex  

Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana Stays Haryana's Stilt-Plus-Four Policy

Introduction

India's urban centres are growing faster than the infrastructure meant to support them. In Haryana, this tension finally reached a breaking point when the Punjab and Haryana High Court stepped in to protect citizens from a policy that, in its own words, placed "safety and security of the general public at stake." On April 2, 2026, a division bench headed by Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry issued an interim stay on Haryana's controversial Stilt-Plus-Four (S+4) floors policy — a decision with far-reaching implications for urban planning in India.

What Is the Stilt-Plus-Four Policy?

The S+4 policy allows construction of four floors on stilts on residential plots in existing centres of the Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran (HSVP) sectors, raising the earlier cap of three floors. A notification issued on July 2, 2024 by the Additional Chief Secretary of the Town and Country Planning Department also introduced a composition mechanism permitting regularisation even where building plans had not been approved.

Why Did the Court Intervene?

The court observed that the government appeared to have "abdicated its constitutional duty" to provide a healthy urban environment, noting that Gurugram's civic systems — including drainage and sewage treatment — are already under extreme stress, with traffic congestion and flooding in low-lying areas becoming commonplace due to unregulated vertical growth. Crucially, an expert committee had recommended that a Standard Operating Procedure for an infrastructure capacity audit be prepared before implementing such a policy — a recommendation the government bypassed entirely.

The Bigger Picture

This ruling is not merely about one policy. The halt on the S+4 policy highlights a key lesson — real estate growth cannot ignore infrastructure limits. Critics argue that allowing four floors above stilt parking in plotted colonies puts pressure on civic infrastructure such as roads, sewage systems, drainage, and water supply, without conducting proper feasibility studies. The government, on its part, had collected approximately ₹689.80 crore under purchasable development rights, yet transparency on its utilisation remains lacking.

Challenges Remain

The bench noted that it had earlier rejected similar interim pleas in March and June 2025, and was persuaded to act only after the Supreme Court's intervention and mounting evidence of infrastructure stress. Developers who planned projects under the S+4 model now face sudden disruptions. A final verdict on the policy's legality is still awaited, and the matter is listed for the next hearing on April 8, 2026.

Conclusion and Suggestions

The court's intervention is a timely reminder that urban development must be data-driven, not revenue-driven. Authorities must conduct independent infrastructure capacity audits before approving density-increasing policies. Expert committee recommendations must carry binding weight, not be shelved for convenience. Citizen welfare associations and judicial oversight have proven vital — and should be institutionalised as standing checks on urban policy. Sustainable cities are built on planned foundations, not improvised floors.

The Real Estate Blog by Apex is compiled by Apex Legal Eagles, a specialized Real Estate law firm based in New Delhi & Haryana. The authors can be contacted at apexlegaleagles@gmail.com. Readers should not act on the basis of this information without seeking professional legal advice.