GMADA Enhancement Charges: Why A Bill Can Arrive Ten Years After You Bought The Plot ## GMADA एन्हांसमेंट चार्जेस: प्लॉट खरीदने के दस साल बाद भी बिल क्यों आ सकता है ## GMADA Enhancement Charges: ਤੁਸੀਂ ਪਲਾਟ ਖਰੀਦਣ ਤੋਂ ਦਸ ਸਾਲ ਬਾਅਦ ਵੀ ਬਿੱਲ ਕਿਉਂ ਆ ਸਕਦਾ ਹੈ

You paid for the plot. You paid the instalments. Years passed, maybe a decade. Then a notice arrives from GMADA asking for several lakh more.

Nothing has changed about your plot. What changed is a court case you were never party to, in a dispute you never knew existed, between the authority and the farmer whose land your plot was carved out of.

This is enhancement, and it is the most common way a GMADA purchase costs more than the price you agreed.

What enhancement actually is

When GMADA acquires agricultural land, it pays the landowner compensation. Landowners who consider that compensation inadequate can go to court, and courts frequently agree with them and order a higher figure.

That increase is the enhancement. The authority passes it on to the people who bought plots carved out of the acquired land.

So the chain runs: a farmer is paid, the farmer sues, a court raises the amount years later, and the bill lands on a plot buyer who had no involvement in any of it. The allottees' own objection, raised repeatedly, is exactly this. The compensation dispute is between GMADA and the landowners. Why are allottees paying for it?

What is contested is the timing, the amount, and whether the recovery follows the procedure it is supposed to.

Ten years is the optimistic case

IT City. Around 7,000 allottees across Sectors 82, 83-A and 66-B have been served notices at ₹7,845 per square yard, following a GMADA agenda meeting on 12 January 2026 and a letter from the Chief Accounts Officer to the Land Officer later that month. On a 400 square yard plot that comes to close to ₹32 lakh. The notices went out more than ten years after the plots were allotted.

Many of those allottees hold industrial plots bought with substantial loans and are still paying EMIs, which is why a delegation described the demand as pushing people toward severe financial hardship. One allottee's summary, quoted by The Tribune, was blunter: additional charges more than ten years after allotment, described as daylight robbery.

Sectors 76 to 80. Here the gap was twenty-two years. Plots were allotted in 2001. Notices at ₹3,164 per square metre went out in 2023, to roughly 5,000 allottees, with more than a thousand served by mid-2024.

A former minister put the sharpest question to GMADA on that gap. Allottees had received NOCs, had maps approved and completed transfers in the intervening years, each of which brought them back across the authority's counter. No enhancement was raised at any of them.

That is what makes the timing more than a technicality. The bill does not arrive late because nobody knew. It arrives late after years of transactions in which it could have been raised and was not.

What the two rates actually say when you convert them

The two schemes are billed in different units, which hides the most useful comparison in this story.

₹3,164 per square metre is ₹2,645 per square yard. IT City is being billed at ₹7,845 per square yard.

IT City allottees are therefore facing almost exactly three times the rate that produced a twenty-two year campaign in Sectors 76 to 80. Measured against the reduced rate those allottees eventually negotiated, ₹2,325 per square metre or ₹1,944 per square yard, IT City is being asked for slightly over four times as much. The precedent everyone cites was fought over a rate less than a third of the one now on the table.

For what it translates to on the ground, the Sector 76-80 allottees themselves put the ₹3,164 rate at over ₹6 lakh on an 8 marla plot and nearly ₹4 lakh on a 6 marla one. Those are their figures rather than the authority's, and at Punjab's 25 square yards to a marla the 8 marla number computes closer to ₹5.3 lakh, so treat both as indicative of scale rather than as a calculation.

What happened when allottees pushed back

The 76 to 80 story is the closest thing to a precedent, and it went through every available route.

Allottees formed an Anti-Enhancement Committee, protested outside the GMADA office in Sector 62 in July, burnt copies of the notices, and eventually moved court after repeated assurances produced nothing. The Mayor and Deputy Mayor both criticised the authority publicly. Their central argument, beyond the unfairness, was practical: if GMADA has to pay the farmers, it holds unsold commercial property in those same sectors it could sell instead.

The result, after a delegation led by the Mohali MLA met Chief Administrator Vishesh Sarangal, was a proposed reduction of ₹839 per square metre, bringing the rate to roughly ₹2,325. Alongside it, GMADA agreed not to levy penalty or interest on those who had not deposited since the notices were issued, and to refund or adjust the excess for those who had already paid.

The reduction is still a proposal awaiting approval at the competent level. So the amount has proved negotiable, but it took years, organisation and litigation, and it is not yet banked.

IT City allottees have been making the same commercial-property argument, pointing out that GMADA has yet to sell the commercial area there. In January, after a delegation met the local MLA, they were told the enhancement calculation would be re-examined.

What changed this month

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed GMADA to follow the prescribed procedure for recovering enhancement charges from IT City allottees, and GMADA has consequently called a meeting of allottees and transferees this month.

That is a meaningful shift. The dispute so far has been about the amount. A direction to follow the prescribed procedure is about whether the recovery was properly done at all, which is a different and more fundamental question, and it is the first thing IT City allottees have obtained that Sectors 76 to 80 did not.

The other kind of bill that arrives late

Enhancement is not the only charge that turns up long after a purchase, and a case before the High Court this month shows how far the delay can run.

A plot in Sector 69, Mohali. The full amount was paid and, in the petitioner's words before the court, fully satisfied in 1995. The petitioner is a bona fide purchaser for consideration from the original allottee. Possession of the plot has still not been delivered to him.

On 11 September 2024, the Punjab Revisional Authority-cum-Secretary, Housing and Urban Development decided a revision petition, directing that the plot be transferred to the petitioner on deposit of a penalty under a policy circulated on 22 May 1997.

One month later, on 11 October 2024, GMADA's Estate Officer issued an order seeking non-construction charges of ₹1.66 crore.

Non-construction charges are levied when an allottee fails to build within the required period. The petitioner's counsel, Rubal Garg, argued it was unimaginable that they were being sought here, given that the Revisional Authority had already held the petitioner had a right to have the plot transferred, that the 1997 policy concerned penalty for delayed payment rather than non-construction, and that the Estate Officer had no authority in law to issue the notice once the Revisional Authority had decided the matter.

The practical shape of it is stark. A charge for not building, on a plot paid for in 1995, of which possession has never been handed over, raised twenty-nine years later.

And the condition attached to it

Before the transfer would be initiated, the Estate Officer's order required the purchaser to submit an affidavit stating that he would not file any court case or take any other action against the orders passed in the revision petition, or seek waiver of construction fees.

A division bench of Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri and Justice Pravindra Singh Chauhan said it was shocked by the condition, described it as contrary to law, the Indian Contract Act and public policy, and called it prima facie atrocious in nature. It directed GMADA's Chief Administrator to personally file an affidavit explaining how such a condition came to be imposed in letters issued by the Estate Officer, and whether any action had been taken against the officer for imposing it.

The case is listed for 14 September. Nothing has been finally decided.

What these cases have in common

The bill is separate from the price. What you agreed to pay for a GMADA plot is not the total of what GMADA can later ask you for, and enhancement is the standard route by which that happens. It attaches to the plot rather than to the person, so a transferee inherits it along with everything else.

The amount has proved negotiable, but only under pressure. Sectors 76 to 80 got a proposed quarter off after years of committees, protests and court proceedings, and IT City is starting from a rate three times higher. Nobody has yet obtained relief by writing a letter.

And the procedure matters as much as the number. The High Court's intervention on IT City is about process, not quantum. The Sector 69 case turns on whether an officer had authority to issue a notice at all, and on a condition the court called atrocious. Nothing in a GMADA allotment requires a buyer to undertake not to go to court.

Our comparison of GMADA, PUDA and RERA sets out which body does what, and our buyer's guide covers the document set including the no dues position, which is where a pending enhancement on a scheme would surface.

None of the above is legal advice, both matters are live before the court, and the position in any individual case turns on its own facts.

---

Sources

- MLA promises way out as allottees of IT City, Mohali, resent enhancement charges, The Tribune, 29 January 2026, on the ₹7,845 per square yard rate, the roughly 7,000 allottees in Sectors 82, 83-A and 66-B, the ₹32 lakh figure on a 400 square yard plot, the industrial allottees and their loans, and the assurance of re-examination
- Mohali: GMADA to recover additional price from IT City allottees, The Tribune, 23 January 2026, on the 12 January agenda meeting, the Chief Accounts Officer's letter and the unsold commercial area
- HC slams GMADA's 'atrocious' condition barring plot buyer from legal action, Saurabh Malik, The Tribune, 7 September 2026, on the Sector 69 plot, the ₹1.66 crore non-construction charges, the 1995 payment, the undelivered possession, the 11 September and 11 October 2024 orders, the affidavit condition, the bench's directions and the 14 September listing
- Reduction in enhancement charges proposed for Mohali Sector 76-80 allottees, The Tribune, on the ₹3,164 per square metre rate, the proposed ₹839 reduction, the waiver of penalty and interest, the refund or adjustment of excess, and the meeting with the Chief Administrator
- GMADA allottees protest enhancement cost notices, The Tribune, on the Sector 62 protest, the roughly 5,000 allottees, the 1,000 notices, the allottees' per-plot estimates and the commercial property argument
- Allottees to move court against Mohali development authority, The Tribune, on the decision to litigate and the allottees' objection that the compensation dispute is between GMADA and the landowners
- Ex-minister, Mohali MLA spar over enhancement charges for Sec 76-80, The Tribune, on the 2001 allotment and 2023 notices, and on the NOCs, map approvals and transfers that passed without the charge being raised