The Punjab and Haryana High Court has issued a notice to the Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (GMADA) regarding a contentious enhancement fee imposed on residents of Sectors 76 to 80 in Mohali. The court’s action comes in response to a plea filed by approximately 30,000 plot holders, challenging the legality of GMADA’s demand notices dated July 2023 and January 2025, which collectively impose an additional ₹288 crore on top of an already hefty ₹300 crore enhancement fee.
The dispute traces back to a procedural delay from 2013, when GMADA initially failed to initiate proceedings to recover the enhancement fee. The authority is now seeking to recover not only the original amount but also an added interest of ₹288 crore for the delay, effectively doubling the financial burden on the affected residents.
In October 2024, the high court had directed GMADA to reconsider the residents’ grievances within six weeks. However, GMADA upheld its decision in December, leading to further legal action from the plot holders. The residents argue that the imposition of the additional fee is arbitrary and illegal, particularly as it passes the consequences of a decade-old administrative delay onto them.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/d86a3/d86a3c11aa756f14ecf2c3628b53d21eac5fd5b6" alt="Play button"
Further complicating the issue, the plot owners contend that GMADA erroneously included an additional 80 acres of land from Sectors 85 and 89 within the boundaries of Sectors 76 to 80, unfairly increasing the enhancement fee. This inclusion, they claim, has placed an undue financial strain on the residents, violating legal and procedural norms.
GMADA began issuing notices in May 2023, mandating that plot holders pay the recalculated fee of ₹2,645.50 per square yard or face punitive measures. This has led to significant unrest among the affected parties, who argue that the demand is not only erroneous but also unsustainable on multiple legal grounds.
The plea emphasizes the urgency of the matter, stating, “The impugned demand is apparently erroneous and unsustainable on multiple grounds. But owing to inaction at the end of the respondent authorities, rights/interests of the petitioners are gravely impaired and with each passing day, the said liability is multiplying.”