Meta Pixel
Do Bigha Zamin Logo
All Briefs

NCR Market Brief · Tuesday, 25 August 2026

Gurgaon buyers face an execution-and-operations underwriting test

Today’s evidence points to a common risk across Gurgaon’s premium and mid-market housing: possession certainty, maintenance control and utility resilience cannot be inferred from brochures or occupancy certificates. Buyers should price delayed delivery, disputed recurring costs and infrastructure dependencies into negotiations, while demanding project-level records before treating location or branding as protection.

1

8 years on, only 10% work done at Gurgaon condo, homebuyers protest

Buyers at OSB Golf Heights, Sector 69, protested after alleging that only around 10% of construction has been completed, eight years after the project launched. Construction has reportedly remained virtually shut for nearly three years, while some buyers have paid as much as 87.5% of their flat cost. The project was launched in 2018 under Haryana’s affordable housing scheme, which buyers say required completion within four years. They are seeking government intervention, a restart plan and a possession timeline, after repeated approaches to DTCP and HRERA allegedly produced no concrete roadmap. Buyers also raised concerns about legal proceedings involving the developer’s managing director; the developer’s response was unavailable. Several purchasers said they continue paying EMIs without clarity on completion.

Why it matters

This is a direct promoter-execution and payment-risk signal. Underwriting must distinguish nominal booking price from the capital-at-risk period, financing carry, enforceability of claims and the project’s credible completion path.

Value-Deal Angle

I would consider only a deeply risk-priced resale or claim position for a buyer able to tolerate an uncertain, extended resolution period, not an end-user needing near-term possession. I would require current HRERA filings, sanctioned-plan status, construction certification and any authority-backed completion roadmap before assigning value.

Advisor Implication

Obtain the latest HRERA project record and compare reported physical progress with sanctioned construction milestones; separately verify payment receipts, allotment terms, lender charge status and any recorded authority or court action involving the project.

Source: Times of India

2

RWA escalate protest over delayed maintenance handover at BPTP Park Serene, to withhold payments

Residents of BPTP Park Serene, Sector 37D, have resolved to withhold future CAM, club, water and allied maintenance payments while demanding formal handover of maintenance to the elected RWA. The association alleges that BPTP/BPMS has delayed the process for years by revising the proposed MoU and adding conflicting clauses. Residents estimate disputed management and dewatering charges create a financial impact of about ₹2 crore annually across the society. They have also sought financial records, including income statements, bank transactions and vendor-payment proofs. BPMS rejected the allegations as false, said documentation had been shared and attributed the delay to changing RWA requirements. The dispute therefore remains unresolved, with payment stoppage creating potential friction over services, arrears and resident governance.

Why it matters

The issue affects recurring ownership cost, service continuity and resale disclosure. A buyer needs to know whether CAM arrears, disputed charges, incomplete asset transfer or governance conflict could follow the unit after registration.

Value-Deal Angle

I would target only a resale in a society where the buyer can independently verify service continuity and quantify disputed CAM exposure, with pricing reflecting unresolved governance risk. I would not treat a low quoted maintenance figure as valid until the MoU, audited records and payment position are reconciled.

Advisor Implication

Request the RWA resolution, proposed MoU versions, latest CAM invoices, audited or supporting expense records, vendor-payment evidence and a written statement of unit-specific arrears before negotiating price.

Source: Times of India

3

450 families in Gurgaon condo rely on DG set as snag sparks outages

About 450 homes at Imperia Esfera, Sector 37C, experienced outages lasting 12 to 19 hours over three days, including one interruption of more than 19 hours. Residents said the breakdown affected lifts, water supply and other essential services, forcing reliance on diesel generation. The immediate fault was identified as involving CT/PT units, but the RWA alleges a broader unresolved issue: despite an occupation certificate issued in 2018, the society still depends on an 11-kV temporary connection rather than a permanent 33-kV supply. Residents also question whether the reported sanctioned load of around 700 kW is adequate and cite DG costs of ₹29–32 per unit. DHBVN said the latest fault was internal and the developer was responsible for rectification.

Why it matters

This is a utility-resilience and recurring-cost risk, not merely a temporary inconvenience. Buyers should underwrite permanent power connectivity, sanctioned load, equipment condition, DG dependence and the allocation of fault responsibility between the developer and DHBVN.

Value-Deal Angle

I would examine resale apartments in established Gurgaon societies only where utility performance is documented and the price compensates for verified operating-cost or reliability risk. I would require evidence of the permanent connection and load position before relying on the occupation certificate as proof of functional infrastructure.

Advisor Implication

Obtain the latest DHBVN connection and load documents, outage log, joint-inspection correspondence, DG bills and RWA records on CT/PT faults; inspect the electrical room and confirm whether a permanent 33-kV connection is commissioned.

Source: Times of India

Value-Deal Watch

The exact profile I would hunt today is a resale apartment in an occupied Gurgaon society with independently verifiable title and approvals, functioning utilities, transparent CAM history and a seller willing to price a documented operational or governance problem rather than conceal it. The target would be a unit where the discount is measurable against quantified arrears, DG exposure, maintenance obligations or a temporary service defect, while possession and access are already established. I would invalidate the deal if the seller cannot produce a clean unit-level dues statement, the RWA cannot reconcile accounts, utility responsibility remains disputed, sanctioned infrastructure differs from actual service, or the project record shows unresolved execution or compliance risk. A cheap entry price is not value if future costs or exit friction cannot be bounded.

Today's Advisory Signal

The cross-story pattern is a widening gap between formal milestones and lived housing performance: launch age does not prove execution, an occupied society does not prove utility resilience, and builder-controlled maintenance does not establish predictable ownership cost. Compare assets on four linked measures: promoter completion evidence, legal and sanctioned infrastructure, recurring CAM and utility expense, and the depth of credible resale demand. For every discount, identify the specific risk being priced, the document that verifies it and the party able to cure it. If any of those three remain unclear, treat the apparent bargain as unquantified liability.

Get tomorrow's brief by email