Loading dispatches...
← Return to Newsroomgeneral
ED summons Greater Mohali Authority chief in Suntec City-Altus CLU probe
Breaking
Kyiv bridge hit in further drone attack as German chancellor makes surprise visit
The ED investigation has now reached senior officials of GMADA and the housing department. (File Photo)The Enforcement Directorate (ED), Jalandhar Zonal Office, has summoned the Chief Administrator of the Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (GMADA) Sandeep Kumar in connection with its ongoing money-laundering investigation into alleged irregularities in Change of Land Use (CLU) approvals granted to the Suntec City and Altus Space Builders Pvt Ltd projects. According to the summons, the GMADA Chief Administrator, or an authorised representative not below the rank of a gazetted officer, has been directed to appear before the ED office in Jalandhar on Monday and produce records related to the probe.The development has triggered intense discussion in Greater Mohali’s real estate circles, as the ED investigation has now reached senior officials of GMADA and the housing department — the authorities responsible for granting the CLU approvals under scrutiny. The notice issued by the ED states that the personal appearance of the Chief Administrator is required “to give evidence and for production of records” in the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) investigation. The agency has also warned that failure to comply with the summons could attract action under the provisions of the PMLA, 2002, and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. Proceedings under Section 50 of the PMLA are deemed judicial proceedings. Notably, the summons comes barely 10 days after the ED carried out simultaneous raids at around a dozen locations in Mohali, Chandigarh, New Chandigarh and Patiala on May 8 as part of the same probe. The searches targeted the Indian Cooperative Housing Building Society — promoter of Suntec City — along with its office-bearers Ajay Sehgal and Suresh Kumar Bajaj, Altus Space Builders Pvt Ltd, ABS Townships Pvt Ltd, Dhir Constructions and its promoter Gaurav Dhir, besides alleged middleman Nitin Gohal. The raids reportedly continued for over 36 hours at multiple premises, including Gohal’s residence in Kharar and the Mohali residence of Pritpal Dhindsa. Speaking to The Indian Express, GMADA Chief Administrator Sandeep Kumar confirmed receiving the summons from the ED.Story continues below this ad “We have received the summons from the ED. Whatever records have been sought by the agency will be produced before them. GMADA will fully cooperate with the investigation, and any additional record required by the ED will also be provided,” he said. © The Indian Express Pvt Ltd
The Himachal Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority (HP RERA) has defended its role in registering Joint Development Agreement (JDA)-based housing projects involving agriculturists and non-agriculturists, stating that “all registrations were carried out strictly within the statutory framework of the law”.The Regulatory Authority said this in a 10-page reply submitted before the Additional Secretary (Housing) and the Himachal Pradesh Vigilance Bureau on May 13 in the response to officiating Chief Secretary Sanjay Gupta’s letter last week, directing the Additional Secretary (Housing) and state vigilance to collect all relevant information about the JDAs, including about the Chester Hill-2 and Chester Hill-4 projects in Solan district, amid growing controversy over the multi-crore housing projects and allegations of violations of Section 118 of the HP Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972.In their reply, RERA officials mentioned about a detailed order issued by the Chief Secretary (Town & Country Planning (TCP) on November 6 last, wherein the chief secretary reportedly held that “no violation of Section 118 had taken place in the Chester Hill-2, Chester Hill-4 matter, because the Joint Development Agreement itself had subsequently become a ‘non-est’ document in the eyes of law”. Referring to Para 21 of the Chief Secretary’s order, RERA clarified, “The TCP department had categorically observed that once the JDA stood cancelled, it became a non-est document which should not be considered by any authority for any purpose in future. “The order reportedly stated that planning permissions for the project were required to be granted by the competent authority independently and that the cancelled JDA could not be treated as evidence of illegal transfer or possession of land. The TCP order further directed that the submissions made by promoter Hans Raj be considered legitimate and allowed, while the matter was also referred to a Technical Committee constituted for examining the issue.” RERA further said that despite the November 6 order, it “doesn’t accept that there is no violation of Section 118 on the part of Chester Hill”. “So far, the claim that there is no violation of Section 118 on the part of Chester Hill is not accepted, because the matter is under consideration in suo-moto proceedings about the violations of Section 118 of the HP Land Reforms and Tenancy Act, 1972, the matter is still pending before the Solan District Magistrate,” RERA clarified. “The JDA executed between Hans Raj Thakur as land owner and M/s Chester Hill as a JDA partner on June 2, 2022, between the parties was later cancelled through a Cancellation Deed dated January 15, 2025. Since the agreement had never been acted upon and stood cancelled, the Chief Secretary (TCP) observed that it ceased to have legal existence, and therefore, could not constitute a violation of Section 118,” the Regulatory Authority said.Story continues below this ad When contacted, HP RERA Chairperson RD Dhiman said, “Whatever information we have, we supplied to the Additional Secretary (Housing) and to the State Vigilance Bureau. RERA has been working under the purview of the law. We are a professional authority. We don’t hide any facts. We informed them that Rule 3(f) of the HP Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017, allows registration of projects with JDA partners. A total of 17 projects to date have been registered with JDAs. In the case of 12 projects, JDA partners are agriculturists. However, projects registered where the JDA partners are non-agriculturists are only five.” Dhiman further said, “All five pertain to the period before October 17, 2023, because the Principal Secretary (Revenue) had clarified on November 7, 2023, that the JDA partners also need to be agriculturalists. Out of these five, also, in respect of projects- Chester Hills-2 and Chester Hills-4, the Chief Secretary (TCP) vide order dated November 6 held that no violation of Section 118 took place a
Discussion (0)