Searched, Compounded, Named in a CBI Case, Still Unfinished: BPTP’s Greater Faridabad Buyers Wait While Accountability Crawls

A township sold as premium, lived in as a grievance

BPTP sold plots and floors across Sectors 75 to 89 of Greater Faridabad as integrated, modern living. Years after possession, the complaints from those sectors read like a list of things a licensed coloniser is supposed to finish before it hands over a single key.

The anger is not new, and it is not small. In May 2024, resident welfare associations representing about 8,000 voters in these sectors announced they would boycott the Lok Sabha poll over unresolved civic amenities, The Tribune reported. An RWA president in Sector 85 told the paper that residents were being made to pay for road repair.

BPTP’s answer then was the answer it has given since. Rohit Mohan, at the time a vice-president, said the company was ready to resolve the matter amicably and that no unjustified charges were being taken as maintenance.

The boycott did not hold. Most of the 8,000 voted the next day, with RWA office-bearers saying a boycott would only help those in power. The grievances outlived the threat.

Two years on, the complaints had hardened. According to Dainik Jagran and Amar Ujala reports from April to June 2026, as cited by Inventiva, residents of BPTP’s A, C, M and J blocks in Sector 85 marched on the builder’s office on 31 May 2026. They alleged:

• water supply arriving only once in 25 to 40 hours in several blocks;
• sewer lines that overflow onto internal roads;
• no individual electricity connections more than a decade after occupation, with power supplied through the builder’s single-point connection;
• roads that break up quickly, with repair costs billed back to residents.

In April 2026 residents took the electricity demand to Chief Minister Nayab Singh Saini. BPTP’s reported position was that the infrastructure exists and that it has no objection to individual connections. That position leaves one fact standing: the residents still do not have them.

Who pays for work the builder was licensed to finish?

The dispute turns on one distinction, and it is the distinction BPTP’s public statements have never addressed with documents.

Internal roads built to specification, sewerage with proper gradient and outfall, water lines of adequate capacity, electrical distribution and street lighting are development works. Under Haryana’s licensing framework they are the coloniser’s obligation, priced into what the buyer paid.

Cleaning, horticulture, security and minor upkeep are maintenance. Those can legitimately be billed, but only after the development works are complete, certified and handed over.

Residents allege that BPTP has collapsed the two. They say unfinished or failed development work is being repaired at their expense and recovered through maintenance bills and special road-repair charges. BPTP has consistently denied levying unjustified charges.

A denial is not an account. No public document shows when each road, sewer line and water main in these sectors was completed, who certified it, and whether it was ever handed over to a public authority. Until BPTP or the Department of Town and Country Planning produces that record, every rupee collected for “repair” in these colonies carries a question mark.

That is also why residents have repeatedly demanded handover to the Municipal Corporation of Faridabad. A colony run indefinitely by its developer is a colony where the party that may have under-delivered also decides what the repair costs and who pays.

A 15-day committee, and two months of silence

On 4 August 2026, at a meeting in Faridabad’s Mini Secretariat, a five-member joint committee of Faridabad Metropolitan Development Authority and Municipal Corporation officials was constituted on the directions of Haryana minister Rajesh Nagar, the Tigaon MLA whose constituency covers these sectors.

Its brief was to survey the entire BPTP area and report within 15 days on which development works are incomplete, how much is pending at each location, and whether construction met prescribed standards. The minister promised strict action against any negligent contractor or agency.

Fifteen days from 4 August was 19 August 2026. As of 9 October 2026, 51 days past that deadline, this reporter’s search of English and Hindi coverage found no published report, no summary of findings and no announced action.

The committee may have reported privately. If it has, the residents who triggered it are entitled to read it. If it has not, a government deadline has lapsed without explanation in a matter affecting thousands of households.

The mandate was also narrow from the start. It covered physical incompleteness and construction standards. It did not cover the legal basis of the charges collected, the status of completion certificates, or the reasons handover has not happened.

In early October 2026 the Hindi outlet Hint News reported that Nagar had directed officials to examine maintenance and mutation charges levied by builders in Greater Faridabad societies. Another direction is welcome. A published finding would be worth more.

Rs 537.5 crore came in. Rs 4.84 crore closed the file.

While residents queued for tankers, the company’s foreign-money trail was being read by the Enforcement Directorate.

On 26 and 27 August 2025 the ED’s Gurugram office searched multiple premises in Delhi-NCR and Noida under the Foreign Exchange Management Act in its investigation of BPTP Ltd, according to the agency’s press release of 29 August 2025. The agency said it froze bank lockers and seized documents and digital evidence.

The ED’s account, set out in that release and in its later statement on the compounding, is specific:

• BPTP received about Rs 322.5 crore from CPI India I Ltd, Mauritius, in August 2007 and about Rs 215 crore from Harbour Victoria Investment Holding Ltd, Mauritius, in July 2008. That is Rs 537.5 crore.
• The investment agreements carried put options and assured returns, which the ED says FEMA rules did not permit for such investment at the time.
• The seized material showed that the Reserve Bank of India had specifically directed BPTP to amend the shareholders’ agreement and remove the put option, and that BPTP “failed to comply”.
• Around Rs 320 crore of the foreign money, roughly 60% of it, was first placed in fixed deposits and mutual funds instead of being used in projects.

The release then turned to the promoter. The ED said it found that Chairman and Managing Director Kabul Chawla “was the beneficial owner of multiple foreign entities”, one of which had earlier been used to acquire “a costly immovable property in New York, USA”. It said the entities, the property and the source of funds were under examination.

PTI, carried by Business Standard, added that multiple FIRs registered against the company and its directors at police stations across Delhi-NCR were also a subject of the ED probe.

BPTP’s response came from Rohit Mohan, by then its president. He said the matter concerned only “historical investments made in 2007-08” by a Citigroup entity and a JPMorgan entity, that all information sought had been provided, and that the company was cooperating fully.

The ED filed a complaint before the Adjudicating Authority in December 2025. BPTP then asked the RBI to compound the contraventions, and the ED raised no objection. On 17 September 2026 the RBI issued compounding orders under Section 15(1) of FEMA, ANI reported on 1 October, citing the ED.

The price was Rs 4.03 crore for BPTP and about Rs 40.36 lakh each for Kabul Chawla and whole-time director Sudhanshu Tripathi. The total, about Rs 4.84 crore, is roughly 0.9% of the Rs 537.5 crore the ED tied to the contraventions. Payment within the prescribed period ends the adjudication.

Compounding is lawful. It is a civil settlement of a civil contravention, and it is not a conviction. But it is also not a finding of innocence, and it arrives 18 years after the money did. An RBI direction was allegedly ignored, most of the money allegedly sat in deposits, and the matter closes for less than one rupee in a hundred.

The compounding also answers nothing about the New York property. The ED itself said the foreign entities and the source of funds were under examination. More than a year later, the agency has announced no outcome of that examination.

A CBI case inside a probe the Supreme Court ordered

The second front is criminal, and it sits inside the largest homebuyer-fraud investigation the CBI has run in years.

On 29 April 2025 the Supreme Court directed the CBI to register seven preliminary enquiries into what the bench called an “unholy nexus” between builders and banks over subvention schemes. Under those schemes banks paid loan money directly to builders, who promised to service the EMIs until possession. When builders stopped paying, buyers were left with debt and no home.

The court allowed 22 regular cases in July 2025 and six more on 23 September 2025. On 14 April 2026 the CBI searched 77 locations across eight states after registering 22 further cases, PTI reported. That took the total to 50, according to The Pioneer.

One of those cases concerns BPTP. According to Inventiva’s reporting on the FIR and on a Supreme Court order of 20 April 2026 in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 150 of 2026, the CBI registered FIR RC2192026E0001 on 8 April 2026 against BPTP Ltd, unknown directors and promoters, and unknown officials of HDFC Bank.

The FIR, as reported, concerns BPTP’s Pedestal Floors project in Sector 70-A, Gurugram, marketed in early 2014 under a “No Pre-EMI till delivery of possession” scheme. It alleges that loan money was disbursed without due diligence and in connivance with bank officials. These are allegations under investigation.

BPTP went to the Supreme Court against the CBI. As reported, the court recorded the company’s claim that 180 units had been completed and that no other buyer had complained, let BPTP place its material before the agency, and left the investigation running. The FIR was not quashed.

Six months after that FIR, no chargesheet in the BPTP case has been publicly reported. The Supreme Court has already rebuked the CBI in this batch for its pace and for not examining bank officials, saying homebuyers’ agony cannot be prolonged. That rebuke applies here with full force.

The criminal complaints are older still. IANS reported in April 2022 that the first FIR against the company was registered in January 2011 over a Faridabad project with more than a thousand buyers and about Rs 400 crore at stake, and that a Delhi court issued a non-bailable warrant against Kabul Chawla later that year. This article could not establish the present status of that case or warrant from court records, and makes no claim about it.

What can be said is narrower and still damning for the system. Fifteen years after that first FIR, and after an ED search and a CBI case, no arrest of any BPTP director has been publicly reported in these matters, and no trial is known to have concluded.

What courts have already found

Allegations are one thing. Findings are another, and BPTP has several against it in consumer cases.

On 24 September 2025, in Rajnesh Sharma v. M/s Business Park Town Planners Ltd (2025 INSC 1149), a Supreme Court bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih ordered the company to refund Rs 43,13,212 to a buyer who had booked a plot in 2006. The buyer had terminated the agreement in March 2017 after the plot was never allotted.

The consumer commission had awarded 9% interest. The Supreme Court doubled it to 18%, the same rate BPTP had charged the buyer on his own delayed instalments, and gave the company two months to pay, ETV Bharat reported.

The bench’s language was blunt. It spoke of “the long wait that the appellant had to endure over a period of a decade, causing harassment and anxiety, which are writ large”. It held that the developer “cannot be permitted to escape with a nominal liability for its default” while charging 18% itself, as Moneylife recorded.

This was not a one-off. In March 2023 the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission directed BPTP and Countrywide Promotors to refund Rs 77.77 lakh with 9% interest to a buyer in the Terra project in Gurugram for failing to deliver on time.

In December 2019 the same commission dismissed four BPTP appeals and upheld refunds with 10% to 12% interest. It found deficiency of service in the delayed possession and in what it treated as arbitrary additional charges.

Arbitrary charges and delay were the findings in those cases. Arbitrary charges and unfinished work are the complaints in Greater Faridabad today. The pattern is the residents’ allegation, but the precedents are the courts’ own.

The record at a glance

Enough files. Deadlines.

Every institution that could act on BPTP has opened a file. None has closed one in a way a resident of Sector 85 can feel. Process without a deadline is how a decade passes.

The demands that follow ask for nothing beyond what the law already allows.

1. Publish the committee report. The FMDA and Municipal Corporation committee was given 15 days on 4 August 2026. Its report, with location-wise deficiencies, should be made public immediately, and BPTP’s reply should be published beside it.
2. Widen the mandate. The Department of Town and Country Planning should state, project by project, which licences have completion certificates, which works were certified, and why handover to the Municipal Corporation has not happened.
3. Audit the money. An independent forensic audit should examine every maintenance and road-repair collection in these sectors. Any charge that paid for development work the licence already required should be refunded with interest.
4. Finish the works at the developer’s cost, on a dated schedule, with licence and bank-guarantee consequences for default, and then hand the colonies over.
5. The ED should say what it found. It told the public in August 2025 that foreign entities and a New York property were under examination. Thirteen months later it owes the public the outcome, whichever way it goes.
6. The CBI should move at the pace the Supreme Court demanded. The Pedestal Floors investigation should end in a chargesheet or a reasoned closure within a fixed period, and the role of bank officials must be examined, not presumed away.
7. Courts should clear the old cases. FIRs dating back to 2011 should receive a status report and a trial calendar. A case that neither convicts nor acquits for fifteen years fails the accused and the complainant alike.
8. Haryana RERA should take up the Greater Faridabad complaints suo motu and test them against each project’s registered commitments.

If BPTP has completed what it was licensed to complete, a published record will clear it faster than any press statement. If it has not, the residents have already paid once for these roads and sewers. They should not be paying again while the files age.

Disclaimer

Allegations remain allegations. This article is based on court orders, official press releases of the Enforcement Directorate, statements attributed to the Central Bureau of Investigation, and published news reports, all listed below. It is published in the public interest.

No court of law has convicted BPTP Ltd, Kabul Chawla, Sudhanshu Tripathi or any other director or officer of the company of any criminal offence as of the date of publication. Every person and entity named is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty by a competent court.

An FIR is the start of an investigation, not a finding of guilt. A search by an investigating agency is an investigative step, not proof of wrongdoing. The CBI FIR referred to names unknown directors, promoters and bank officials, and its allegations are untested.

The RBI’s compounding order under FEMA settles a civil contravention on payment of a sum. It is not a criminal conviction. The Enforcement Directorate’s statements about foreign entities and an overseas property describe matters under examination and have not been adjudicated.

The consumer-forum and Supreme Court orders cited are civil findings of deficiency in service in individual cases. They do not establish criminal liability.

Residents’ complaints about civic infrastructure and charges are allegations. BPTP has denied levying unjustified charges and has stated that it has cooperated fully with the authorities. The company’s published responses are reproduced above. BPTP and the persons named are welcome to send a detailed response, which will be carried in full.