BPTP’s SkyNest “Success Story” Collapses Under Its Own Weight: ₹750 Crore Sales Blitz While Discovery Park Allottees Allege Land Grab, Broken Promises, and Regulatory Defiance

BPTP Limited has spent the past fortnight flooding the media with glossy claims that it has sold 150 luxury apartments for approximately ₹750 crore at SkyNest (also called Sky Nest Towers) in Sector 80, Greater Faridabad—an average ticket size of roughly ₹5 crore. The company trumpets awards, biophilic design, 150-metre twin towers, 20 “Sky Nests,” and a projected GDV of ₹1,800 crore on a project it says will cost around ₹1,100 crore. What the paid campaign carefully omits is that SkyNest sits on residual land from the same Licence No. 44 of 2008 that covered the older Discovery Park colony, and that Discovery Park allottees have filed a representation-cum-complaint before Haryana RERA (Panchkula) alleging that the promoter bifurcated the original 16.331-acre group housing licence, obtained revised building plans without the required two-thirds allottee consent under Section 14 of the RERA Act, and launched a new high-rise while schools, remaining towers, and common amenities promised in the original 2012 layout remain undelivered.

The official HRERA extract (Item No. 327.37, meeting of 29 July 2026) records the complaint in detail. Allottees state that the original building plans approved on 27 June 2012 envisaged 12 main residential towers of 15 floors each, two EWS towers, a nursery school, a primary school, a shopping complex, and a clubhouse over the full 16.331 acres. Only nine towers and two EWS towers have been constructed, they allege. Discovery Park was registered under RERA No. 297 of 2017 for 10.74 acres covering specific towers and EWS; SkyNest received a fresh registration (HRERA-PKL-FBD-881-2026 dated 9 April 2026, valid to 31 March 2033) on approximately 5.4–5.9 acres of residual land. The allottees further claim the bifurcation was not properly disclosed in the original RERA application, that the project was sold between 2012 and 2015 as one integrated colony, and that the revised plans of 5 March 2026 changed the façade without the consent mandated by the RERA Act and a DTCP public notice of 18 July 2022. They have sought cancellation or suspension of the SkyNest registration, a stay on further bookings and construction, nullification of the revised plans, adherence to the original layout, and penal action. The Authority issued notice to BPTP and directed a reply; the matter has been adjourned repeatedly, including to 9 September and 16 September 2026. No final order has been passed. Residents of Discovery Park have separately told local media of persistent post-possession failures: absence of individual electricity connections years after occupation began around 2019, reliance on single-point supply with frequent outages, maintenance climbing toward ₹9,000, waterlogging, and non-functional street lights.

This is not an isolated marketing excess. It fits a documented pattern in which BPTP has repeatedly collected large sums, missed contractual timelines, faced refund and compensation orders, and continued launching new inventory while older buyers wait.

List of Documented Delayed, Incomplete, or Contested BPTP Projects

• Discovery Park, Sector 80, Faridabad: RERA registration lapsed after extensions; pending HRERA representation on land division, revised plans without consent, and undelivered schools/amenities; local reports of electricity and maintenance shortfalls years after possession.
• Parklands plotted developments and related colonies, Sectors 75–89, Greater Faridabad: Possession in phases from around 2012; ongoing 2025–2026 resident protests and local media reports of sewage overflowing onto streets, water supply once every 25–40 hours in some blocks, absence of individual electricity connections more than a decade after occupation, incomplete municipal handover, and recurring road and infrastructure failures.
• Park Terra and Park Spacio, Sector 37D, Gurugram: Multi-year possession delays; 2026 HRERA Gurugram orders directing refunds.
• Park Serene, Sector 37D, Gurugram: Ongoing RWA disputes over delayed maintenance handover and contested charges.
• The Resort, Sector 75: Documented multi-year delays relative to original commitments; consumer commission orders in individual matters.
• Park Sentosa, Sector 77, Faridabad: NCDRC partly allowed a representative complaint and ordered refunds with interest for delay.
• Pedestal Floors / Pedestal @70A, Sector 70A, Gurugram: Subject of the 2026 CBI FIR concerning a “No Pre-EMI till delivery” subvention scheme.
• Other individual allotment matters (Princess Park, Amstoria, Next Door, etc.): Consumer commission findings of abnormal delay, with directions for possession, compensation, or refunds in specific cases.

RERA Actions and Orders Against BPTP

In March 2026, the Gurugram bench of Haryana RERA directed BPTP to refund approximately ₹18.12 lakh with interest to a Park Terra allottee who had booked in 2012 (possession due end-2016). The Authority rejected the developer’s attempt to forfeit 15% as earnest money, holding that the statutory cap is 10%, and treated the failure to refund as a continuing liability. In July 2026, the same bench held BPTP’s collection of ₹1,16,545 as pre-possession maintenance in Park Spacio to be an unfair trade practice. It ordered refund of the amount with 11% interest from the date of collection, awarded ₹1 lakh compensation for mental agony, and ₹50,000 in costs. Earlier, in December 2024, HRERA Panchkula issued orders in a Park 81 / Parklands-related matter awarding delay interest from the deemed possession date and quashing demands for extra area beyond the occupancy certificate and for a non-operational club. Discovery Park’s registration status is recorded as lapsed, with the current representation still pending.

Supreme Court Action

In Rajnesh Sharma v. M/s Business Park Town Planners Ltd. (2025 INSC 1149, 24 September 2025), a bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih enhanced the interest on a refund of approximately ₹43.13 lakh from 9% (as awarded by NCDRC) to 18%. The buyer had booked a plot in 2006 in a BPTP (then Business Park Town Planners) project. The Court noted the decade-long wait, the harassment and anxiety, and the fact that the developer itself charged 18% on delayed buyer payments. It held that equity and fairness required the same rate and that the developer could not be permitted to escape with nominal liability for its default. The Court ordered the refund within two months.

Enforcement Directorate and FEMA

On 26 and 27 August 2025, the ED’s Gurugram office conducted searches under FEMA at BPTP offices and the residences of Chairman and Managing Director Kabul Chawla and Whole-Time Director Sudhanshu Tripathi. The agency stated that BPTP had received FDI of more than ₹500 crore from Mauritius entities—approximately ₹322.5 crore from CPI India I Ltd. and ₹215 crore from Harbour Victoria Investment Holding Ltd.—in 2007–08 under the automatic route, structured with put/swap options providing guaranteed returns, which it said violated the then-prevailing FDI policy. Documents seized showed that the RBI had directed amendment of the shareholders’ agreement to remove the impermissible put option and that BPTP had not complied. The ED also noted that Chawla was the beneficial owner of foreign entities, one of which had been used to acquire a costly property in New York, and that multiple FIRs were already registered against BPTP and its directors in Delhi-NCR for long-pending non-completion of projects and alleged diversion of funds. On 17 September 2026, the RBI compounded the specific contravention for a total of approximately ₹4.84 crore (company roughly ₹4.03 crore; each director roughly ₹40.36 lakh). The ED’s announcement made clear that compounding closes only the compounded contravention. It is not an acquittal, does not address other FIRs, and does not resolve questions about overseas assets or source of funds.

CBI Action

Following Supreme Court monitoring of a larger probe into alleged collusion between builders and banks in subvention schemes, the CBI’s Economic Offences-I branch in New Delhi registered FIR RC2192026E0001 on 8 April 2026 against BPTP Limited, unknown directors/promoters of BPTP, unknown officials of HDFC Bank, and unknown others. The offences invoked include criminal conspiracy and cheating under the IPC and provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The project named is Pedestal Floors / Pedestal @70A in Sector 70A, Gurugram, marketed in 2014 under a “No Pre-EMI till delivery of possession” scheme. The FIR records allegations of upfront loan disbursement without due diligence, default on pre-EMI obligations by the builder, non-completion or non-refund, and consequent harm to buyers’ credit. The Supreme Court had directed registration of regular cases after criticising the CBI for appearing to try to “wriggle out” of the responsibility. BPTP approached the Court (Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 150 of 2026); the FIR was not quashed and the investigation continues. As of mid-October 2026 reporting, no arrest of any named BPTP promoter or director in this specific case has been publicly reported. The FIR lists directors/promoters as “unknown.”

High Courts and Other Proceedings

The Delhi High Court has dealt with multiple BPTP-related matters, including a defamation suit filed by the company against a journalist and publisher (no ad-interim injunction granted in April 2026; the Court directed that further reporting be fair comment and fair reporting) and a recent order directing CFSL examination of a disputed audio recording in a contempt-related application. The Punjab and Haryana High Court, in September 2025, set aside a roughly ₹2 crore environmental compensation imposed by the Haryana Water Resources Authority on BPTP for alleged illegal groundwater extraction, holding that principles of natural justice and due process had been violated, and directed a fresh physical inspection. These are procedural or interim outcomes; they do not constitute findings of criminal guilt.

EOW, Historical FIRs, and the Pattern

The ED’s August 2025 release explicitly recorded that multiple FIRs were already registered against BPTP and its directors at police stations in Delhi-NCR concerning long periods of non-completion of projects and alleged diversion of funds, and that those matters were under examination. Earlier reporting has referenced FIRs dating back years, including one in 2011 involving a Faridabad project and a subsequent non-bailable warrant in a related matter. Consumer commissions and RERA have repeatedly ordered refunds with interest or compensation for delay and disputed charges. No court of law has convicted BPTP Limited or its named directors of criminal offences in the specific matters detailed above as of the date of this report. Allegations remain allegations until proved. Compounding under FEMA is a civil settlement of a specific contravention, not a clean chit on other issues.

The contrast is stark. While BPTP’s public relations machine sells SkyNest as a landmark ultra-luxury success that has already booked ₹750 crore, the same company’s older buyers in the same sector are still litigating over the original land, still reporting missing schools and incomplete infrastructure, and still facing the same developer that the Supreme Court has already told cannot escape with nominal liability for delay, that RERA has ordered to return money collected before possession, that the ED has searched, and that the CBI is investigating under Supreme Court supervision. The sales campaign does not answer the questions raised in Item No. 327.37. It merely changes the subject.

Homebuyers and the public are entitled to answers, not more adjournments. The pending HRERA representation must be decided on merits without further delay. Enforcement agencies—RERA, the CBI, the ED, and state EOWs—must pursue the existing FIRs and investigations to conclusion with the speed and transparency the Supreme Court has already demanded in the larger subvention matter. Regulatory and investigative bodies should examine the land-division claims, the consent issue, the original versus revised plans, and the completeness of promised amenities with the same rigour applied to the sales figures. Until those questions are resolved by competent authorities, the ₹750 crore headline remains a marketing claim sitting on top of an unresolved regulatory complaint and a long record of documented buyer disputes.

Disclaimer: The allegations detailed above, including those in the HRERA representation-cum-complaint concerning SkyNest and Discovery Park, remain allegations unless and until established by the competent authority or a court of law. No court of law has convicted BPTP Limited or its named directors of criminal offences in the specific matters described in this report as of the date of publication. Compounding of a FEMA contravention is a civil settlement limited to that contravention. This report relies on official extracts, regulatory orders, Supreme Court judgments, Enforcement Directorate statements, and contemporaneous news reporting. Readers should treat unproven claims as such. The public interest demands that pending investigations and regulatory proceedings be concluded expeditiously and that enforcement agencies act with greater speed and transparency.