Deadlock Over Funds Delays Structural Audits in Gurugram Housing Societies
Structural audits of 20 residential societies in Gurugram remain stalled as a dispute over funding between builders and resident welfare associations (RWAs) continues unresolved. The Department of Town and Country Planning (DTCP) has been issuing repeated notices for over a year, but neither the builders nor the RWAs have deposited the required funds. The situation has left critical safety assessments in limbo, raising concerns about structural integrity in these societies.
Background of Structural Audit Initiative
The need for structural audits gained urgency following the collapse of a section of Chintels Paradiso in Sector 109 on February 10, 2022. In the incident, the living rooms of five flats in Tower D caved in, leading to the deaths of two women. This tragedy prompted the district administration to take complaints about structural deterioration in residential buildings more seriously.
Following the Chintels Paradiso collapse, around 75 societies reported structural concerns, with residents raising issues such as cracks in walls, peeling plaster, and weakened concrete. The administration, in response, initiated a phased structural audit process to assess the safety of high-rise buildings across the city.
Phase One: Initial Audits and Builder Responsibility
The first phase of the structural audit process covered 15 residential societies. In this phase, builders were responsible for bearing the cost of the audits. All societies except one—Raheja Atharva in Sector 109—completed their audits. Identified structural deficiencies were communicated to builders, who were required to undertake necessary rectifications.
Phase Two: Dispute Over Cost-Sharing
For the second phase, an additional 23 societies were identified for structural audits. However, two societies fell under the jurisdiction of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), reducing the number to 21. Unlike in the first phase, builders objected to covering the full cost of the audits. After an intervention by former Chief Minister Manohar Lal, it was decided that both builders and RWAs would share the cost equally.
Since then, both parties have failed to contribute their respective shares, leading to prolonged delays.
Current Status of Audits
As of now, only one society—NBCC Heights in Sector 89—has completed its structural audit after the builder and RWA deposited the required amount. In two cases—BPTP Park Serene (Sector 37D) and Satya Hermitage (Sector 103)—the builders have paid their share of the cost, but the RWAs have not contributed their portion.
The remaining 18 societies have not deposited any funds, effectively halting the audit process. These societies include:
- Indiabulls Centrum Park (Sector 103)
- Paras Dews (Sector 106)
- ATS Tourmaline (Sector 109)
- Vatika G-21 (Sector 83)
- SS Coralwood (Sector 84)
- Takshila Heights (Sector 37C)
- GPL Eden Heights (Sector 70)
- Vipul Lavanya (Sector 81)
- Orris Aster Court (Sector 85)
- Parsvnath Green Ville (Sector 48)
- SS Hibiscus (Sector 50)
- Wembley Estate (Sector 50)
- Bestech Park View Sanskriti (Sector 93)
- Ansal Estella (Sector 103)
- Raheja Navodaya (Sector 92)
- Aloha Apartments (Sector 57)
- Raheja Atharva (Sector 109)
- SS Almeria (Sector 84)
- DTCP’s Response and Ongoing Notices
The district town planner (enforcement wing) of DTCP, Amit Madholia, confirmed that repeated notices have been sent to both builders and RWAs, but no action has been taken. He stated that the issue has been escalated to the deputy commissioner, who has been informed about the lack of progress.
Despite multiple meetings convened by the deputy commissioner with stakeholders, the dispute over cost-sharing remains unresolved. The impasse has raised concerns over the safety of high-rise buildings, especially in light of past incidents where structural failures led to casualties.
Impact on Residents and Housing Societies
Residents living in these societies are increasingly concerned about the structural stability of their buildings. Many have already reported issues such as cracks, water leakage, and deteriorating construction quality. Without timely structural audits, identifying and addressing potential hazards remains difficult.
The funding dispute also reflects broader tensions between builders and RWAs regarding maintenance responsibilities. While builders argue that their obligations end after handing over possession, RWAs contend that many construction defects only become apparent after years of use, requiring continued accountability from developers.
The administration may need to impose stricter enforcement measures to break the deadlock. One option is to introduce penalties or regulatory action against non-compliant builders and RWAs. Alternatively, a revised cost-sharing model or government intervention could help resolve the issue.
Until the matter is settled, structural safety assessments in these societies remain stalled, leaving thousands of residents uncertain about the condition of their homes.
