Gurugram Demolitions: Supreme Court Refuses Relief To Residents, Says Approach High Court
Supreme Court was told today that the High Court in the impugned order had not directed any demolition or anti-encroachment action.
Supreme Court said if the high court's interim order was allegedly misconstrued by the authorities, then the petitioners should approach the high court itself.
The Supreme Court today refused to entertain a petition filed against the ongoing demolition drive in Gurugram by some aggrieved residents. A CJI Surya Kant led bench asked the petitioners to approach the Punjab and Haryana High Court instead.
The bench also comprising Justice Joymalya Bagchi disposed of the plea, granting liberty to the petitioners to make an urgent mentioning before the high court during the course of the day.
Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for the petitioners, argued before the bench that the local authorities have been carrying out the demolition drive without issuing show-cause notices to the residents by misconstruing an interim order of the high court.
"If the high court, in its constitutional duty, is taking a drive to stop or prevent or dismantle the unauthorised constructions, then as an apex body, why should we cause hindrance?" the CJI observed.
Sankaranarayanan urged the bench to grant status quo for three to four days and said that the petitioners would approach the high court.
"These are completely legal constructions," he added, stating that petitioners were individual residents and the authorities were undertaking the demolition drive without giving any show-cause notices to them.
On April 2, the Punjab and Haryana High Court, in an interim order, had stayed the operation of the Haryana government's 'stilt-plus-four floors' building policy, which permits the construction of four residential floors above stilt parking.
The high court while flagging serious concerns, had observed that the state appears to have put public safety at risk merely to earn more revenue.
The interim order was passed in a petition challenging the July 2, 2024 order issued by the additional chief secretary of the town and country planning department which had permitted construction of 'stilt-plus-four floors' on residential plots, raising the earlier cap of 'stilt-plus-three floors'. It had also introduced a composition mechanism even in cases where building plans had not been approved.
The Haryana officials has launched an anti-encroachment campaign against unauthorized constructions and encroachments across urban areas, beginning with Gurugram.
As per the petitioners, following the High Court's stay on the S+4 policy, the State authorities issued a directive dated April 16, 2026, interpreting the order as authorizing immediate demolition of boundary walls, ramps and green areas across multiple residential sectors. The petitioners contended that the High Court had merely stayed the operation of the policy notification and had not directed any demolition or anti-encroachment action.
Supreme Court was further told that the administrative directive triggering the demolitions fails to cite any statutory provision authorizing such action and does not define what constitutes encroachment in the decades-old residential sectors.
Case Title: Residents of Sector 31, Gurugram (Lane 635 to 957) v. Chief Administrator HSVP and others
Bench: CJI Kant and Justice Bagchi
Hearing Date: April 27, 2026