BEFORE:
The Estate Officer
Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (GMADA)
PUDA Bhawan, Sector 62, S.A.S. Nagar, Punjab 160062
REPLY TO SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE UNDER THE PUNJAB REGIONAL AND TOWN PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ACT, 1995
SUBJECT: Residential Plot No. 1247, Sector 78, Urban Estate, S.A.S. Nagar, allotted vide Allotment / Re-allotment Letter No. GMADA/EO/S-78/2016/4471 dated 1 April 2026 — in the matter of Notice / Memo No. GMADA/EO/SCN/2026/1183 dated 2 April 2026 and the sum of ₹8,12,000 (Rupees Eight Lakh Twelve Thousand only) claimed thereunder.
Respected Sir / Madam,
PART A — THE ALLOTTEE, THE SITE, THE NOTICE AND THE MONEY
A-1. I, Harpreet Singh Bedi, son of Shri Gurdial Singh Bedi, resident of House No. 214, Phase 3B2, S.A.S. Nagar, Punjab 160059, am the allottee and transferee of Residential Plot No. 1247, Sector 78, Urban Estate, S.A.S. Nagar, measuring 250 square yards, in the urban estate of Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (GMADA) (hereinafter "the said site"). I may be contacted on +91 XXXXX XXXXX and at harpreet.bedi@example.com. All notices and orders in these proceedings may be served on me at the above address, and I undertake to intimate any change in it in writing.
A-2. The said site was transferred to me under section 43 of the Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Act, 1995 (hereinafter "the Act") by Allotment / Re-allotment Letter No. GMADA/EO/S-78/2016/4471 dated 1 April 2026. The total consideration money fixed for the said site by that letter is ₹42,50,000 (Rupees Forty Two Lakh Fifty Thousand only).
A-3. Against that consideration money I have paid to the Authority a total of ₹36,00,000 (Rupees Thirty Six Lakh only) up to the date of this representation, and the receipts are annexed. My most recent payment of ₹2,50,000 (Rupees Two Lakh Fifty Thousand only) was made on 3 April 2026, and the receipt for it is annexed. That payment is placed on record at the outset because it shows that I have neither abandoned the said site nor set myself against the Authority's dues.
A-4. As on the date of this representation, physical possession of the said site has been delivered to me and I am in possession of it.
A-5. THE COMMUNICATION OUT OF WHICH THESE PROCEEDINGS ARISE. These proceedings arise out of Notice / Memo No. GMADA/EO/SCN/2026/1183 dated 2 April 2026, issued to me by the Estate Officer under sub-section (1) of section 45 of the Act, proposing a penalty for default in payment of consideration money or an instalment. It is identified here whether this representation shows cause against that communication, appeals against an order since passed in the same matter, or does both, so that the file can be traced from a single reference. That notice was served on me on 4 April 2026. Sub-section (1) of section 48 of the Act runs the period of thirty days for an appeal to the Competent Authority "from the date of the service of notice under section 46 or section 47, as the case may be", and not from the date of any order, and it is that date of service which is relied upon for limitation in this matter.
A-6. THE MONEY CLAIMED. A sum of ₹8,12,000 (Rupees Eight Lakh Twelve Thousand only) is stated by the Authority to be due from me and in default. The action taken or proposed against me includes forfeiture of ₹5,60,000 (Rupees Five Lakh Sixty Thousand only) out of the money already paid by me. I say at once, and before dealing with anything else, that sub-section (3) of section 45 of the Act permits forfeiture only of "the whole or any part of the money, if any, paid in respect thereof which in no case shall exceed ten per cent of the total amount of the consideration money, interest and other dues payable in respect of the transfer of the land or building or both". That ceiling is a limit on jurisdiction and not a matter of discretion, and no term of the allotment letter and no policy of the Authority can raise it. The consideration money for the said site is ₹42,50,000 (Rupees Forty Two Lakh Fifty Thousand only); the ceiling is one-tenth not of that figure alone but of the total of the consideration money, the interest and the other dues payable in respect of the transfer, and that total has to be established on a dated statement of account of the Authority's own before a single rupee is forfeited. On the Authority's own figures that total is ₹53,10,000 (Rupees Fifty Three Lakh Ten Thousand only). One-tenth of that sum is therefore the outermost amount capable of being forfeited in law, whatever the default; the sum proposed to be forfeited from me is to be measured against that tenth and brought down to it, and I ask that the arithmetic be set out in terms in any order made against me so that it can be tested. Any forfeiture above that tenth is to that extent without authority of law and is liable to be set aside even if every other finding against me stands.
A-7. THE REASON FOR THE DEFAULT. The default was not wilful, and the circumstances in which it arose are these: The instalment falling due on 10 March 2026 could not be paid because the housing loan sanctioned to me by my bank on 2 February 2026 was disbursed only on 28 May 2026, the bank having held disbursement pending the Authority's permission to mortgage, for which my application dated 12 February 2026 was decided only on 21 May 2026. The sanction letter, my mortgage-permission application with its diary number, and the permission letter are annexed as Annexures B, C and D. The delay was therefore caused by a process within the Authority's own office, and not by any unwillingness on my part.
A-8. THE STATE OF THE SAID SITE. The consideration money under section 43 of the Act is payable in respect of a site which the Authority undertakes to develop and to deliver on the terms of the allotment, and sub-section (6) of section 43, which keeps the land in the Authority until the entire consideration money together with interest and any other amount due on account of the transfer is paid, is a provision securing the Authority's money — it is not, by itself, a licence to resume. As to the condition of the said site and of the estate in which it lies, I place the following on record: The sector road abutting the said site was not laid until March 2025, water and sewerage connections were not made available until August 2025, and street lighting is still not functional. I wrote to the Estate Officer on 4 April 2024 and 19 January 2025 on this subject and received no reply; copies with postal receipts are annexed as Annexure E. A default in payment cannot fairly be considered in isolation from the state of the site for which the payment is demanded, and both the imposition of any penalty and its quantum must take account of it.
A-9. ENHANCEMENT AND ADDITIONAL PRICE. Any demand for enhanced or additional price is a distinct demand which must be separately raised, separately computed and separately communicated, with an opportunity to the allottee to be heard upon it, before default in paying it can be visited with a penalty or with resumption. The amount claimed from me includes ₹3,84,000 (Rupees Three Lakh Eighty Four Thousand only) on account of enhancement or additional price. That component is disputed. It has not been shown to me how the figure has been arrived at, the land acquisition awards and the apportionment of the enhanced compensation across the allottees of this estate have not been disclosed, and I request that a computation sheet and copies of the awards relied upon be supplied to me before any order is passed on this component.
A-10. EXTENSION FEE. Sub-section (2) of section 43 of the Act makes a transfer subject to such further conditions as may be prescribed with regard to the completion of buildings, the extension of the period for such completion, and the payment of fees for such extension. Extension fee is therefore chargeable only upon a condition so prescribed and at a rate the Authority has actually notified, computed from the date of allotment and only for the periods for which the delay is attributable to me. The amount claimed from me includes ₹1,27,500 (Rupees One Lakh Twenty Seven Thousand Five Hundred only) as extension fee. That component is disputed. The period during which the said site was not fit for construction, and the period consumed by the Authority in sanctioning the building plans, cannot be counted against me, and I request a period-wise computation of this component, and the condition and rate relied upon, before any order is passed on it.
PART B — CAUSE SHOWN AGAINST THE NOTICE
B-1. This Part is my reply to the said notice, and by it I show cause against the action proposed. This reply is filed within the period of thirty days allowed by the Act from the service of the said notice upon me. I respectfully submit that no order may be passed upon the said notice until the cause shown in this reply has been considered and I have been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The proviso to sub-section (1) of section 44 of the Act forbids a direction for penalty on arrears of rent, fees or contribution "unless the person affected thereby has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter". Sub-section (2) of section 45 requires the Estate Officer to act "after considering the cause, if any, shown by the transferee and after giving him a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter". Sub-section (4) of section 45 requires him to consider the cause shown against the notice under sub-section (3) "and any evidence that he may produce in respect of the same" and again to give him a reasonable opportunity of being heard. And the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 46 forbids an order to vacate "unless such person has been afforded an opportunity to show cause as to why such order should not be made".