Chandigarh/Mohali। — The Enforcement Directorate’s investigation into alleged financial irregularities involving the Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (GMADA) has entered a much wider phase, with the agency now examining not only individual files and private developers but also the role of senior government officials in decisions involving land, auctions, Change of Land Use permissions, external development charges and financial concessions.
The latest action came on September 22, when the ED conducted searches and surveys at 26 locations across Delhi, Chandigarh, Mohali, Ludhiana and Panchkula in a money-laundering investigation linked to Tirupati Infraprojects Pvt Ltd and associated entities. The GMADA headquarters and the office of Punjab’s Principal Secretary, Housing and Urban Development, IAS officer Vikas Garg, were among the government premises covered by the operation. The agency also searched premises linked to private real-estate companies and a consultancy firm associated with GMADA.
According to information attributed to ED officials, the agency is investigating allegations that promoters of Tirupati Infraprojects also controlled entities including Remigate Buildestates (India) Pvt Ltd and MB Infrabuild Pvt Ltd. These companies had acquired two prime auction sites from GMADA and subsequently received substantial financial relief relating to dues payable to the authority. The ED has estimated the suspected undue benefit to the companies and corresponding potential loss to the state exchequer at more than ₹100 crore.
The agency is also examining the role of Tila Consultants and Contractors Pvt Ltd, a consultancy firm that has undertaken work for GMADA. Investigators are reportedly looking into whether the firm acted as an intermediary in the alleged irregularities. These are allegations under investigation and do not establish criminal liability against any individual or company.
The ₹40-crore file that had already attracted ED attention
One of the most closely watched cases within the wider investigation concerns a 1.13-acre food-court site in Sector 62, Mohali, allotted to Delhi-based Remigate Builders through a GMADA auction in September 2015 at a reserve price of ₹32.50 crore.
The allottee subsequently paid 20 per cent of the total amount along with the first instalment of about ₹9.87 crore. A dispute later developed over the site’s development status and the dues claimed by GMADA. The authority had raised a demand of nearly ₹40 crore towards non-construction charges and penal interest.
The matter took a significant turn at GMADA’s 34th meeting in February 2026. The authority concluded that the demand was not justified, citing the fact that the site was not free from encumbrances, and decided to waive the amount. Earlier, the Punjab Finance Department had reportedly raised objections to the proposed relief.
The decision has become particularly significant for investigators because earlier decisions on the same property had followed a different course. As per the sources that former GMADA Chief Administrator Kavita Singh had previously denied relief to the realtor after an engineering report in 2017 had described the site as feasible for development. Between 2017 and 2020, requests for waiver were reportedly considered several times but rejected.
The subsequent decision to waive the approximately ₹40 crore demand therefore raises a straightforward investigative question: what changed between the earlier decisions and the later one, and on what documentary and technical basis was the liability ultimately waived?
The ED had already summoned GMADA Chief Engineer Ajay Garg and former Chief Engineer Sunil Kansal in connection with this matter. The agency sought records and evidence relating to the investigation under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.
Why senior IAS officers are now under the scanner
The latest searches demonstrate that the investigation is no longer confined to private builders.
Vikas Garg, the Principal Secretary of Punjab’s Housing and Urban Development Department, is among the senior officials whose office was surveyed. The GMADA headquarters was also searched, while several senior functionaries were questioned, according to multiple reports.
The list of officials reported to have come under questioning includes GMADA Chief Administrator Sandeep Rishi, Land Acquisition Collector Rohit Jindal, Estate Officer Aman Gupta, Additional Chief Administrator Amarinder Singh Malhi, Additional Chief Administrator (Finance) Rakesh Popli and Chief Engineer Ajay Garg. The Tribune also reported that the Chandigarh residence of former GMADA Chief Administrator Rajiv Gupta was searched.
Importantly, being questioned or having premises searched does not by itself establish wrongdoing. The relevance of these officials to the investigation will depend on the files, approvals, correspondence, financial records and other evidence examined by the ED.
The bigger question: how were GMADA decisions taken?
The investigation becomes considerably more significant because GMADA controls decisions with substantial financial consequences for both the government and the private real-estate sector.
The current ED probe reportedly extends beyond one developer or one waiver. Investigators are examining GMADA auctions, land acquisition, CLU permissions and the waiver or reduction of External Development Charges and interest payable by builders and developers.
The main thing here is that the investigators are examining decisions taken by the Housing Department and GMADA after June 2025, including decisions concerning changes in land use, major land acquisition in the Mohali and New Chandigarh areas, and the exercise of statutory planning and land-acquisition powers. These are allegations reported from investigative sources and should not be treated as established findings at this stage.
This makes the paper trail particularly important. Investigators are likely to be interested not simply in who signed a particular file, but in how proposals moved through the administrative system, which officers recommended them, what technical reports supported them, whether Finance Department objections were considered, and who ultimately approved the decisions.
Could the investigation reach political leaders?
That possibility cannot be ruled out as a matter of investigative procedure, but there is currently no verified public evidence that the ED has identified a political leader as an accused in this particular GMADA investigation.
A political connection would require evidence linking a politician to a specific decision, transaction, beneficiary, communication or alleged proceeds of crime. Merely being politically responsible for a department, chairing an authority or having a relationship with a developer would not establish criminal involvement.
The same principle applies to the Chief Minister’s Office.
There is a documented institutional link between the top political and administrative levels and GMADA. GMADA’s official directory lists Punjab Chief Minister Bhagwant Mann as chairman and the Housing and Urban Development Minister as the minister in charge, while the Principal Secretary serves as the department’s administrative head.
There have also been changes in the leadership structure of Punjab’s development authorities. In June 2025, GMADA’s executive committee was chaired by Chief Secretary KAP Sinha, and major land-acquisition decisions were subsequently sent to the Chief Minister for final approval in certain cases.
Therefore, if investigators find that a disputed GMADA decision required, received or was influenced by a higher-level approval, the relevant file trail could naturally extend upward. But that is an investigative possibility, not evidence that the Chief Minister or his office is presently implicated.
The Kulwant Singh factor
Mohali MLA Kulwant Singh adds another politically sensitive dimension to the story because he is also a prominent real-estate developer.
The newspapers has previously described Kulwant Singh as a Mohali MLA who is also a builder, while reporting on his questions in the Punjab Assembly concerning colonies, mega projects and housing-related approvals.
His company, Janata Land Promoters Ltd (JLPL), has itself had dealings with GMADA. In June 2026, Kulwant Singh reportedly issued a legal notice to GMADA after his company was described as a ₹152-crore defaulter, disputing the authority’s position.
That background makes his name relevant to any broader discussion about the intersection of politics and real estate in Mohali. But there is currently no reliable evidence in the material reviewed that Kulwant Singh or JLPL is a target of the present ED operation. It would therefore be inappropriate to suggest a connection merely because he is both an MLA and a developer.
This is bigger than one ₹40-crore waiver
The most important development in the present investigation is the widening scale.
The earlier ₹40-crore waiver case raised questions about one property, one developer and the officials involved in deciding whether non-construction charges and interest should be recovered. The latest ED action is examining a much broader set of transactions involving auctions, CLU approvals, land acquisition and financial concessions.
The agency’s reported estimate of more than ₹100 crore in suspected undue benefits and potential loss to the exchequer significantly raises the financial stakes. At the same time, the ED is examining a group of linked companies rather than an isolated corporate entity.
The investigation also comes against a backdrop of older audit concerns involving GMADA. A Comptroller and Auditor General report had previously flagged, among other matters, unrecovered External Development Charges and licence fees amounting to hundreds of crores from developers and mega projects, as well as issues relating to CLU charges and financial management. Those historic audit findings are not proof of the allegations now being investigated by the ED, but they provide important institutional context.
What could happen next?
The next phase is likely to depend heavily on what investigators recover from GMADA’s files, computers, official communications and the records of the developers and consultants under scrutiny.
The key questions will be whether individual decisions caused demonstrable financial benefit to private entities, whether officials acted outside established rules or authority, whether any financial trail connects alleged benefits to persons involved in the decision-making chain, and whether separate cases ultimately form part of one larger money-laundering investigation.
For Punjab’s political establishment, the most sensitive question is not simply whether an officer or developer comes under scrutiny. It is whether the investigation establishes a link between private financial benefit and decisions taken at progressively higher levels of the government machinery.
As of September 23, no such political link has been publicly established in the material reviewed.
But the fact that the ED has now moved from private developers to the offices of senior Housing Department and GMADA officials marks a significant escalation. The investigation is increasingly becoming a test of the entire decision-making chain surrounding Mohali’s rapidly expanding real-estate economy—from the developer and consultant at one end to the technical, administrative and, where evidence warrants, higher approval levels at the other.
The evidence recovered in the coming stages, rather than political speculation, will determine how far this investigation ultimately travels.
This is a web generated news report
