BPTP’s ₹750-Crore SkyNest Sales Blitz Lands on the Same Licensed Land Where Discovery Park Allottees Still Fight for Schools, Power and Basic Promises — While Regulators Keep Adjournments Rolling

Greater Faridabad’s latest luxury pitch has a familiar address. In mid-October 2026, BPTP Limited and multiple news outlets reported that its SkyNest project in Sector 80 had clocked approximately ₹750 crore in sales from 150 apartments, at an average ticket size of roughly ₹5 crore. Twin towers rising about 150 metres, biophilic design, 20 “Sky Nests,” wraparound balconies and over 82,000 sq ft of amenities were presented as the new face of premium living. The project carries HRERA registration HRERA-PKL-FBD-881-2026 dated 9 April 2026, valid until 31 March 2033.

What the glossy releases did not foreground is that SkyNest sits on residual land of the original Licence No. 44 of 2008, granted for a 16.331-acre group housing colony that also covers the older Discovery Park project (RERA registration 297 of 2017 for 10.74 acres covering specified towers and EWS). On 29 July 2026, HRERA Panchkula recorded a representation-cum-complaint (Item No. 327.37) from Discovery Park allottees. They allege that the promoter bifurcated the licensed area, obtained revised building plans dated 5 March 2026 without the prior written consent of two-thirds of the allottees required under Section 14 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, and a DTCP public notice of 18 July 2022, and launched a new high-rise project while the original integrated layout’s schools and other common amenities remain undelivered.

According to the representation, the original building plans approved on 27 June 2012 envisaged 12 main residential towers of 15 floors each, EWS housing, a nursery school, a primary school, a shopping complex and a clubhouse over the full 16.331 acres. The allottees state that only nine towers and two EWS towers have been developed. They further claim the project was sold between 2012 and 2015 on the basis of the full layout reflected in builder-buyer agreements and the deed of declaration, and that the bifurcation was not disclosed in the original RERA application. The Authority issued notice to the promoter and directed a reply; the matter has been repeatedly adjourned, including to 9 September and 16 September 2026. No final order has been passed.

Residents of Discovery Park, whose flats now trade in the ₹2 crore range, have separately told local media (including Dainik Jagran in September 2026) of persistent failures years after possession began around 2019: absence of individual electricity connections, reliance on single-point supply with frequent outages and generator charges, maintenance climbing toward ₹9,000, waterlogging and non-functional street lights. Parallel protests across BPTP’s plotted colonies in Sectors 75–89 of Greater Faridabad, reported by Amar Ujala, Dainik Jagran and others through 2025–2026, have repeatedly cited water supply arriving only once every 25–40 hours in some blocks, overflowing sewers, roads that were never properly handed over to the municipal corporation, and the continued absence of individual power connections more than a decade after occupation in several blocks. A five-member joint committee of Faridabad authorities was constituted in August 2026 to survey these areas; as of early October, no public report had been released.

This is not an isolated brochure-versus-reality gap. It sits inside a longer, documented pattern.

Documented Delivery and Post-Possession Issues Across the Portfolio

Multiple BPTP projects launched in the 2000s and early 2010s faced multi-year delays, later confirmed in consumer and RERA proceedings. Examples drawn from official orders and contemporary reporting include:

• Park Terra and Park Spacio (Sector 37D, Gurugram): Possession timelines slipped years past contractual dates. In March 2026, Haryana RERA (Gurugram) directed a refund of approximately ₹18.12 lakh with interest in a Park Terra matter and rejected an attempt to forfeit 15% as earnest money against the statutory 10% cap. In July 2026, the same bench held BPTP’s demand for pre-possession maintenance of ₹1,16,545 to be an unfair trade practice, ordered its refund with 11% interest, awarded ₹1 lakh compensation for mental agony and ₹50,000 in costs.
• Park Sentosa (Sector 77, Faridabad): NCDRC partly allowed a representative complaint and ordered refunds with interest for delay.
• Older plotted developments under the Parklands umbrella across Sectors 75–89, Faridabad: Possession began in phases from around 2012, yet infrastructure complaints (sewage overflow, intermittent water, single-point electricity, incomplete handover to municipal authorities) continue to surface in 2026 protests and local reporting.
• Individual matters such as Princess Park (Sector 86) and Next Door (Sector 76) have produced consumer-commission findings of abnormal delay and directions for possession, compensation or refunds in specific cases.

In September 2025, the Supreme Court in Rajnesh Sharma v. M/s Business Park Town Planners Ltd. (2025 INSC 1149) enhanced interest on a refund of approximately ₹43.13 lakh from 9% to 18% for a plot booked in 2006. Possession had been due within 24 months of service-plan sanction; no proper offer came until 2018. The Court noted the prolonged wait and the fact that the developer itself charged buyers 18% on delayed payments, holding that the company could not be permitted to “escape with a nominal liability for its default.”

Enforcement and Regulatory Actions

In August 2025, the Enforcement Directorate’s Gurugram office searched BPTP offices and the residences of Chairman and Managing Director Kabul Chawla and whole-time director Sudhanshu Tripathi in a FEMA investigation concerning roughly ₹537.5 crore in foreign direct investment received in 2007–08 via Mauritius entities. The probe examined optionality clauses that assured returns and the alleged deployment of funds. On 17 September 2026, the Reserve Bank of India issued compounding orders under Section 15 of FEMA. BPTP Limited was directed to pay ₹4,03,62,500; Chawla and Tripathi were each directed to pay ₹40,36,250, for a total of approximately ₹4.84 crore. The ED stated that closure applies only to the compounded contravention. The payment does not resolve other investigations or FIRs.

Separately, in April 2026 the CBI registered FIR RC2192026E0001 against BPTP Limited, unknown directors/promoters and unknown bank officials in connection with the Pedestal @70A project in Gurugram, as part of a Supreme Court-monitored examination of subvention-scheme arrangements. BPTP’s writ petition challenging aspects of the probe was disposed of by the Supreme Court in April 2026; the investigation continues. Older police FIRs from the early 2010s involving large numbers of allottees and aggregate claims running into hundreds of crores have also been part of the public record, though many real-estate disputes of that era saw subsequent commercial settlements or quashing after compromise.

NCLT proceedings in 2022 saw an operational-creditor petition admitted against the company before a later settlement. Several RERA registrations linked to older BPTP projects have appeared as “lapsed” on the authority’s database pending further extensions or compliance.

What the SkyNest Sales Do Not Resolve

BPTP has publicly claimed delivery of more than 25,000 homes and a portfolio of over 50 projects, and it continues to launch new inventory, including SkyNest (reported total of around 325 units with an earlier indicated GDV near ₹1,800 crore). The company has not publicly addressed the specific Discovery Park representation in the October sales announcements. The HRERA matter remains at the notice-and-reply stage. Discovery Park residents continue to report basic-service shortfalls. Parallel infrastructure grievances in the wider Greater Faridabad colonies have not been publicly closed.

The contrast is sharp: a premium sales headline of ₹750 crore and “ultra-luxury” positioning on residual land of a 2008 licence, while an active representation questions the bifurcation, the absence of required allottee consent, and the non-delivery of originally promised schools and amenities, and while post-possession basic services remain contested in the same sector and across neighbouring BPTP developments.

Lists of Documented Issues (Based on Public Orders, Regulatory Records and Contemporary Reporting)

Projects with Documented Delays, Incomplete Infrastructure or Ongoing Disputes

• Discovery Park, Sector 80, Faridabad: Pending HRERA representation on land division, revised plans and amenities; resident reports of electricity and maintenance issues post-2019 possession.
• Parklands / plotted colonies, Sectors 75–89, Greater Faridabad: Multi-year infrastructure complaints (water, sewage, individual power connections, municipal handover) continuing into 2026.
• Park Terra and Park Spacio, Sector 37D, Gurugram: RERA refund orders in 2026 for delay and pre-possession charges.
• Park Sentosa, Sector 77, Faridabad: NCDRC refund directions for delay.
• Pedestal @70A, Gurugram: Subject of the 2026 CBI FIR.
• Older individual cases (Princess Park, Next Door, Amstoria and others): Specific consumer or RERA findings of delay or deficiency.

Allegations, Controversies and Proceedings

• HRERA Panchkula representation-cum-complaint (Item 327.37, July 2026 onward) on SkyNest/Discovery Park land and consent issues — pending.
• Multiple RERA and NCDRC orders directing refunds with interest and, in some cases, compensation for unfair practices or delay.
• Supreme Court enhancement of interest to 18% in the 2025 Rajnesh Sharma matter.
• ED FEMA investigation and RBI compounding order of September 2026.
• CBI FIR RC2192026E0001 (April 2026) linked to Supreme Court-monitored subvention probe.
• Historical FIRs from the early 2010s involving large allottee groups.

Actions by Enforcement and Regulatory Agencies

• ED searches (August 2025) followed by RBI compounding (September 2026) limited to the specific FEMA contravention.
• CBI registration of FIR and continued investigation; Supreme Court did not quash the probe.
• Repeated RERA directions for refunds, interest and costs; some projects showing lapsed registration status pending further process.
• State-level committee formed in August 2026 on Faridabad colony infrastructure; no public outcome reported by early October.

Penalties and Orders

• RBI compounding: approximately ₹4.84 crore total (company + two directors).
• Multiple RERA/NCDRC refunds with interest (examples: ₹18.12 lakh; ₹1.16 lakh plus compensation; earlier larger consumer awards).
• Supreme Court direction for 18% interest on the principal refund in the 2006 booking matter.

None of the above constitutes a criminal conviction of BPTP Limited, Kabul Chawla or any director for fraud. The Discovery Park representation remains an allegation pending final adjudication. RERA and consumer orders are civil/regulatory findings of deficiency of service or unfair practice in the specific matters before them. The FEMA compounding settled one civil contravention; it does not constitute a clean chit on other files.

Homebuyers and the public are entitled to ask why a developer with this volume of documented delays, refund orders, a pending representation on the very land parcel being freshly marketed, and active probes continues to collect premium bookings while basic questions about consent, amenities and post-possession services remain open. The pattern is long enough, and the numbers large enough, that the demand for tighter timelines, faster disposal of RERA matters, and more transparent coordination between RERA, DTCP, municipal authorities and enforcement agencies is no longer optional. Adjournments and compounding receipts are not substitutes for completed infrastructure, delivered schools or individual electricity connections.

Disclaimer: The representation before HRERA Panchkula, resident complaints, older FIRs and investigative references are allegations or pending proceedings unless and until a competent court or authority records a final finding. No court of law has convicted BPTP Limited, Kabul Chawla, Sudhanshu Tripathi or associated persons of criminal fraud or related offences in the matters described. Readers should rely on primary orders of the Supreme Court, RBI, ED, CBI, HRERA and consumer commissions. This report calls for speedier and more rigorous investigation and adjudication by the concerned agencies so that pending questions are resolved on evidence rather than left open while new sales proceed.