BPTP Park Floors 2: Residents Back on the Streets, Old Grievances Resurface and a Long Record of Unanswered Questions Demands Accountability

The residents of BPTP Park Floors 2 in Sector 76, Faridabad, have apparently reached a point where repeatedly approaching the developer is no longer enough. Their answer has been to return to the streets. According to a report published by Dainik Jagran on November 1, 2026, residents have been staging protests every Sunday for approximately a month, demanding basic facilities and completion of outstanding infrastructure. They say an earlier protest continued for nearly three months, yet several grievances remain unresolved.

For families who have invested their lifetime savings in a home, the expectation is hardly extravagant: reliable electricity, adequate water supply, proper parking, functional common infrastructure, green spaces and a legally compliant, completed residential project. These are not luxury demands. They are fundamental expectations attached to the purchase of a home.

Yet the residents’ allegations paint a very different picture. They claim that the project is being handed over without all development work being completed and that the society continues to face shortcomings in electricity, water and parking. More than 600 families are said to be affected. The central question is uncomfortable but unavoidable: how does a residential development reach the stage of possession and occupation while residents are still compelled to protest for the infrastructure they say was promised to them?

A 24-acre project, an 11-acre development and 18 alleged outstanding requirements

One of the most significant allegations in the latest report concerns the stated size and development of the project. Residents claim that the overall project covers approximately 24 acres, whereas the society has been developed over only around 11 acres. They further allege that adequate information about the remaining land has not been shared with them and that the promised green area has not been provided.

This requires a clear documentary explanation. A difference between the total project area and the developed residential footprint is not, by itself, proof of irregularity. A project may have multiple approved phases, designated uses or development components. But residents are entitled to understand the sanctioned layout, the land-use allocation, the development phases and the legal status of the remaining area. If the approved plan provides for common facilities, green spaces, roads or other infrastructure, those obligations cannot simply disappear from the conversation when possession is offered.

Residents have also alleged that 18 conditions or requirements connected with the occupation certificate remain unfulfilled. The Jagran report does not reproduce the complete list of those 18 requirements, nor does it publish the relevant occupation certificate or departmental inspection record. The precise nature and status of each condition therefore need verification from the competent authority.

But the issue deserves serious attention. An occupation certificate is not a decorative document, and compliance with the approved building and development requirements cannot be reduced to a dispute between a developer and a group of dissatisfied flat owners. The relevant approvals, completion records and outstanding conditions should be available for inspection.

Equally troubling is the allegation concerning electricity supply. Residents say the society has a sanctioned load of 4 MVA but receives only approximately 1 MVA, leaving it struggling to meet demand. This is a claim made by residents and needs to be tested against the current DHBVN sanction, connection records, load-release documents and distribution infrastructure.

The developer and the electricity distribution company should not be allowed to leave residents arguing over competing figures. The current sanctioned load, actual released load, connected load, peak demand and the status of the infrastructure should be disclosed in a manner that any resident can understand.

This is not the first protest at Park Floors 2

Perhaps the most disturbing feature of the latest protest is that the complaints are not new.

In September 2022, The Tribune reported an indefinite dharna by the Residents Welfare Association of BPTP Park Floors 2. At that time, the society was reported to have at least 672 flats, allotted or handed over to buyers in 2012–13. The RWA president, Rajiv Bhardwaj, alleged that flat owners were still awaiting occupation certificates and that the society lacked regular DHBVN electricity supply, a sewer network and a sewage treatment plant. Residents, he said, were paying for private tankers to dispose of sewage.

The company’s response was also recorded. BPTP vice-president Rohit Mohan said that there were no irregularities on the company’s part and that papers for obtaining the occupation certificate had already been submitted to the concerned department. The then District Town Planner, Renuka Singh, separately stated that the occupation certificate for EWS society flats was pending because papers had not been submitted.

That distinction matters: the official’s statement referred specifically to EWS flats and should not be incorrectly extended to every unit in the society. Nevertheless, the 2022 reporting makes one fact clear: residents were already publicly raising serious concerns about occupancy documentation and essential infrastructure four years ago.

Now, in November 2026, residents are again protesting over electricity, water, parking, green areas and incomplete development.

The question is no longer limited to whether residents are satisfied with the developer. It is why grievances concerning essential infrastructure have been recurring for years and what concrete steps have been taken to resolve them.

A developer cannot expect every renewed protest to be treated as an isolated public-relations inconvenience. When substantially similar complaints reappear in public reporting after several years, the responsible response is to publish the relevant approvals, compliance documents and a time-bound plan for rectification.

The electricity dispute: what the Haryana Electricity Regulatory Commission actually recorded

The concerns about electricity at Park Floors 2 have a regulatory history that is considerably more serious than an ordinary residents-versus-maintenance dispute.

The matter reached the Haryana Electricity Regulatory Commission (HERC) in proceedings arising from a complaint filed in October 2020. The complaint raised allegations that residents were being charged amounts beyond the permitted electricity tariff, additional amounts were being deducted from prepaid meters, the society was being supplied through a single-point connection that also fed other properties in Sectors 75 and 76, adequate electrical infrastructure had not been erected, and electricity supply had been disconnected without adequate explanation.

These were allegations placed before the regulatory authorities. They were not all automatically established merely because a complaint was filed. However, the regulatory record subsequently produced findings that cannot be ignored.

The Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, in an order dated November 28, 2021, had directed Countrywide Promoters and BPTP to complete the formalities necessary for sanctioning the approved electrical load, create adequate electrical infrastructure, arrange an independent single-point connection for Park Floors 2, and transfer that connection to the residents’ RWA or users’ association. It also issued directions concerning correct billing, excess charges and refunds.

The HERC record further reproduced the electricity department’s account of the sanctioned electrification scheme. An ultimate load of 12,977 kW, with a contract demand of 14,419 kVA, had been approved for the group housing colony. A partial load of 2 MVA for Park Floor-II, Sector 76, was sanctioned in August 2017.

More significantly, the regulatory record referred to the pending 33 kV switching-station infrastructure. DHBVN correspondence reproduced in the proceedings stated that the developer was required to complete the switching station within three years, but the work remained pending even after more than five years.

The developers and associated respondents also placed their own explanations and compliance claims before the Commission. The dispute therefore involved not only the residents but also the developer entities, the maintenance entity and the electricity distribution company.

The central point, however, is that the regulatory record did not treat every billing