Saptrishi Soni
Mohali : The Enforcement Directorate’s continuing scrutiny of the Greater Mohali Area Development Authority has brought an important planning question into focus: how did large parcels of land in Sector 62, historically associated with Mohali’s commercial and mixed-use City Centre, become available for high-value mixed-use projects with substantial residential components?
The question is important not because residential development on mixed-use land is automatically unlawful—it is not—but because the planning history of Sector 62, subsequent changes in land-use permissions, the auction conditions and the approvals granted to developers need to be read together.
At the heart of the issue is a simple documentary question: what was the original permitted use of each parcel, what changed later, who approved the change, under which provision of law, and whether the change was properly notified?
That paper trail could provide a much clearer picture of the decisions now attracting scrutiny.
Sector 62 was not conceived as an ordinary residential neighbourhood. It has long been associated with the City Centre concept and a high-intensity commercial and mixed-use development pattern. GMADA’s planning records continue to identify Sector 62 within its planning and zoning framework, while the authority’s more recent auction documents explicitly describe major parcels in the sector as Mixed Land Use, or MLU.
However, the phrase “Mixed Land Use” is critical. It does not mean that a site can be used only for shops and offices. Depending on the applicable zoning regulations and the conditions attached to a particular site, mixed-use development can include more than one category of activity, including residential use.
This distinction is at the centre of the Sector 62 controversy.
A January 2026 report said GMADA had prepared a new framework for selling several large commercial sites in Sector 62 as mixed-land-use properties. The report stated that the proposed MLU framework would permit commercial activity along with residential, civic, cultural, office and other uses. GMADA’s reasoning, as reported at the time, was that large sites developed exclusively for commercial purposes had faced market difficulties because of high reserve prices and competition from emerging areas such as Aerocity and IT City.
If that reported decision is accurate, the key investigative question is therefore not simply whether residential development was introduced into Sector 62. It is when the permitted development framework changed, whether the change amounted to an amendment of the Master Plan or a change within an already permissible MLU category, and which authority approved it.
That distinction has considerable legal importance.
Under the Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Act, 1995, a Master Plan is not an administrative document that can simply be altered informally. Section 76 provides for preparation of a Master Plan and says that the provisions governing preparation and approval of the original plan apply, as far as possible, to a subsequent Master Plan. Section 77 separately deals with “minor changes” after a Master Plan has come into operation. Such changes require prior approval of the State Government and must be necessitated by matters specified in the provision, including errors, omissions, details not fully indicated on the plan or changes arising from implementation. The law further states that such a change must be in the public interest and notified to the public.
This means the exact nature of the Sector 62 change matters.
If the planning authority merely applied an existing MLU provision to a site, the legal position would be different from a situation in which land specifically zoned for one use was converted into another use through an amendment.
The distinction cannot be established simply by looking at a developer’s project or an auction notice. The relevant government notifications, zoning plans, approvals and minutes must be examined.
And this is where the Sector 62 story becomes more interesting.
From City Centre to high-value mixed-use development
Sector 62 has emerged as one of GMADA’s most valuable development locations. In the first major 2026 auction, MLU Plot 20-21 fetched ₹603.03 crore against a reserve price of ₹517.63 crore, while Plot 13 attracted a bid of ₹405.68 crore. The Tribune reported that the two Sector 62 MLU properties were among the most valuable assets sold during the auction.
GMADA’s overall auction during January-March 2026 generated approximately ₹3,136.97 crore from 37 of 42 properties sold. The authority reported a substantial premium over the combined reserve prices.
The scale of the transactions illustrates why land-use classification matters financially.
A change that increases the range of permissible uses can potentially alter the development economics of a site. Residential apartments, offices, retail space, hotels and other uses can have very different market values and revenue potential.
That does not prove that any particular change was improper.
But it does make the approval trail important.
The January 2026 decision needs closer examination
The January report on Sector 62 is particularly relevant because it described GMADA’s decision to offer several large parcels under the MLU category.
According to the report, GMADA planned to sell five plots covering about 27.77 acres, along with other large parcels, under mixed land use. The stated rationale was that large sites restricted to commercial development had not performed as expected in the market.
The reported new framework allowed residential use alongside commercial and other activities.
If this was a modification of an existing planning prescription, the next question should be: **where is the notification?**
Was it:
an amendment to the Master Plan?
a modification to the zoning plan?
an alteration in the permissible-use regulations?
a site-specific development condition?
a decision of the competent planning authority?
or an approval by the State Government?
Each possibility carries a different legal and administrative route.
What the law requires
The Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Act provides a statutory framework for changes to planning documents.
Section 76 contemplates preparation of a fresh Master Plan, including alterations or additions considered necessary, with the statutory Master Plan procedure applying to it. Section 77 permits limited “minor changes” with prior State Government approval and expressly requires public-interest justification and public notification.
Therefore, the statement that “no change can be made in a Master Plan without public notification” needs to be used carefully.
It is accurate in the context of the specific “minor changes” contemplated by Section 77, but it is not a complete description of every possible planning amendment under the Act.
For an investigative report, that legal distinction is essential.
The land-use question and the ED investigation
The issue becomes even more relevant because the ED is already examining GMADA records in a wider investigation involving alleged financial irregularities and real-estate transactions.
The agency’s interest in GMADA is reportedly extending to land acquisition, auctions, change-of-land-use decisions, concessions to developers and other administrative decisions involving valuable properties.
That does not mean every planning decision under investigation was illegal, nor does it mean every bureaucrat involved in such decisions is accused of wrongdoing.
The investigative purpose is potentially much broader: reconstructing how decisions were made, who approved them, what rules were applied and whether any decision created an unlawful financial advantage.
That is why the role of bureaucrats becomes important.
A planning decision does not normally emerge from a single officer acting alone. It can involve the estate branch, planning officials, engineering officials, finance officials, senior administrators, the authority’s competent committees and, depending on the nature of the decision, the State Government or other statutory bodies.
The relevant question for investigators is therefore the decision-making chain.
What happened to Sector 62 land?
The answer appears to be more complicated than the allegation that “commercial land was simply converted into residential land”.
Recent GMADA auction documents describe major Sector 62 parcels as MLU. One large parcel, Plots 30-34, measuring roughly 27.78 acres, was subsequently auctioned in 2026 for ₹1,742.31 crore against a reserve price of about ₹1,214.16 crore.
Earlier, Plot 20-21 fetched ₹603.03 crore and Plot 13 ₹405.68 crore.
These transactions show that the market value attached to MLU land in Sector 62 is enormous.
They also raise a straightforward public-interest question:
If the permitted development potential of these parcels changed before the auctions, did the reserve-price calculations fully reflect the enhanced development potential?
And if there was no such change, what were the precise MLU provisions under which residential development was already permissible?
That is the point that can be established only by comparing the documents chronologically.
The documents that can settle the controversy
A proper investigation should begin with the original planning record and then move forward.
The essential documents are:
1. The original Mohali Master Plan covering the 2006-2031 planning period.
2. The original Sector 62 zoning/layout plan.
3. The precise land-use classification of plots 10, 13, 20-21 and 30-34 at the relevant point in time.
4. Every subsequent notification affecting the permitted use of these plots.
5. Any State Government approval under the Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Act.
6. Any public notice issued inviting objections to a planning change.
7. The minutes of meetings in which the proposed change was considered.
8. The auction notices and detailed terms for the individual plots.
9. The reserve-price assessment files.
10. The development permissions subsequently granted to successful bidders.
11. Building plans and zoning permissions for projects that include residential towers.
12. Records showing whether the permitted residential component existed before the auction or was introduced afterwards.
This comparison would answer the central question far more conclusively than political statements or allegations.
Why the “root cause” theory needs caution
It is tempting to describe a Master Plan alteration as the “root cause” of the entire controversy.
At present, however, the available evidence does not justify that conclusion.
There may have been a planning change. There may instead have been an implementation decision under an existing MLU framework. There may also have been multiple changes over different periods.
The January 2026 report itself indicates that GMADA considered the introduction or expansion of MLU permissions as a deliberate policy response to market conditions.
That makes the central issue one of documentation and authority:
Who changed what, under which legal provision, on what date, after whose approval and following what public-notification process?**
Until those questions are answered, describing the matter as an illegal conversion of commercial land into residential land would be premature.
A potentially bigger question
There is, however, a broader issue that deserves scrutiny.
If public land originally planned for a particular development purpose subsequently acquires significantly greater development potential through a planning or zoning change, the financial implications can be substantial.
That raises questions about:
the timing of the change;
whether the change preceded the auction;
whether it was reflected in the reserve price;
whether all bidders had equal access to the information;
whether the change was properly approved;
whether the public was given an opportunity to object where legally required;
and whether the eventual development permissions corresponded with the auction conditions.
Those are legitimate governance questions independent of whether any criminal offence has been committed.
The Sector 62 paper trail is now the real story
The available evidence establishes that Sector 62 is undergoing a major transformation in its development profile and that GMADA is selling large parcels under an MLU framework. It also establishes that the land involved is of exceptionally high value.
What remains to be established is whether the planning framework changed, precisely how it changed and whether every statutory safeguard was followed.
That is also why the ED’s examination of GMADA records could prove significant.
If investigators find only properly approved planning changes followed by transparent auctions, the documentary trail will establish that.
If, on the other hand, the records show that a particular land-use change was made without the required approval or notification, or that development potential was altered in a manner that allegedly created an improper financial advantage, the same paper trail could become central to the investigation.
For now, the most responsible conclusion is not that Sector 62 was illegally converted from commercial to residential use.
