Greater Mohali Area Development Authority flags Rs 1,014 crore dues, builders dispute claims

A list released by the Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (GMADA) showing more than Rs 1,014 crore in outstanding dues against some of the region’s biggest real estate developers has triggered concern among homebuyers and investors, with several builders disputing the claims and threatening legal action.

The controversy comes amid an ongoing Enforcement Directorate (ED) probe into alleged irregularities in Change of Land Use (CLU) approvals granted to certain real estate projects in the Mohali region. In recent weeks, the ED has conducted searches linked to Suntec City and other projects, while senior GMADA officials have also been questioned in connection with the investigation.

According to GMADA, the dues comprise External Development Charges (EDC), licence fees, social infrastructure charges and other statutory liabilities linked to residential and mega housing projects. The authority has reportedly directed that no fresh approvals, permissions or payments be processed for the projects concerned until the outstanding amounts are cleared.

The development has raised concerns among thousands of homebuyers who invested in these projects on the understanding that developers would deposit all government charges collected from purchasers. Industry observers said prolonged disputes could affect approvals, infrastructure development and project timelines.

The Indian Express made repeated attempts to contact GMADA Chief Administrator Sandeep Kumar. Calls went unanswered and a message seeking his response elicited no reply till the filing of this report.

Among those contesting the list is Mohali MLA and Janta Land Promoters Limited (JLPL) promoter Kulwant Singh, whose projects in Sectors 82, 90 and 91 have been shown as having outstanding dues of Rs 152.12 crore.

“We are serving a legal notice on the GMADA Chief Administrator and initiating legal proceedings. The authority has concealed material facts while issuing this list. The matter is already pending before the Supreme Court and we have obtained a stay order. GMADA was fully aware of this position. When a matter is sub judice and protected by a court order, such representations should not be made until the court delivers its final verdict,” Singh said.

Story continues below this ad

Gillco Developers & Builders Pvt Ltd chairman Ranjit Singh Gill said the amount reflected against his company was the result of an administrative error rather than wilful default.

“There was an inadvertent mistake on the part of our staff and a cheque relating to the payment was misplaced. The amount has now been deposited and the issue stands resolved from our side,” Gill said.

Repeated attempts to contact Shiwalik Site Planners owner Amardeep Singh Hira were unsuccessful as he is currently abroad.

No response could be obtained from Bajwa Developers either. Managing Director Jarnail Singh Bajwa is presently in judicial custody, while officials at the company’s office were unavailable for comment.

Story continues below this ad

Projects approved under the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act (PAPRA) account for dues of Rs 312.47 crore. According to GMADA records, major outstanding amounts include Chandigarh Royale City Promoters at Rs 47.89 crore, Shiwalik Site Planners at Rs 20.55 crore, Bajwa Developers at Rs 150.59 crore across two licences, Casa Espana at Rs 15.60 crore, RKM Housing at Rs 31.07 crore and Suntec City at Rs 11.47 crore.

The largest share of the dues falls under the mega-project category, where liabilities total Rs 701.56 crore. Bajwa Developers accounts for Rs 377.91 crore through two mega projects, followed by JLPL at Rs 152.12 crore, Sukhman Infrastructure at Rs 69.06 crore, H.P. Singh and Others at Rs 45.78 crore, Globus Projects at Rs 34.52 crore and Preet Land Promoters at Rs 22.14 crore.

With more than Rs 1,014 crore at stake and several prominent projects facing regulatory restrictions, the dispute has emerged as one of the biggest recovery challenges before GMADA in recent years. As developers challenge the authority’s claims and legal battles intensify, homebuyers remain caught in the middle, awaiting clarity on projects in which they have invested substantial savings.