Calculation of land area: GMADA refund to real estate firm irregular

The CAG found that while the developer had deposited the EDC and LF for the land measuring 21.385 acre, the refund was calculated for 21.61 acres of land

Written by Jagdeep Singh Deep | Mohali | Published:September 18, 2016 5:19 am
gmada, CAG, GMADA CAG, mohali, GMADA mohali, mohali, GMADA CAG, indian express, latest news, chandigarh, chandigarh news, mohali news GMADA office building in Mohali. Express photo

The Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) has slammed Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (GMADA) for making irregular refunds to the tune of more than Rs 11 crore to a private builder despite the latter not fulfilling certain conditions. The audit report, released last week, also mentioned that the measurement of land for which the builder sought GMADA’s permission, was not correct, thereby causing loss to the development authority.

As per the report, GMADA refunded Rs 11.68 crore to Hamir Real Estate Private Limited upon finding that the latter paid Rs 13.40 crore more in March 2010 for a project that was to come up in Ballomajra village. The developer had deposited Rs 70.67 crore, which included External Development Charges (EDC) and License Fee (LF). The report added that GMADA adjusted the remaining Rs 1.72 crore of the overpaid amount towards Social Infrastructure Fund.

During the audit, the CAG found that while the developer had deposited the EDC and LF for the land measuring 21.385 acre, the refund was calculated for 21.61 acres of land, as per the report. The audit, carried out in April 2014, also observed that the refund was granted to the developer despite the latter not fulfiling the conditions required to avail benefits of reduced rates of EDC and LF.

The report also said that the developer has admitted to not holding any other project in Punjab and also of not selling part of the mega projects to any other party, thereby removing the chances of passing the benefits of reduced rates of EDC and LF to the end user.

The report said that CAG has raised questions on the refund as the developer was not fulfiling the conditions of a notification which was released in 2010 and the fact of non-fulfilment of the condition regarding transfer of benefit to the consumers or end users was not brought out in the agenda item placed before the authority.