ED Probes GMADA; AAP Admits Serious Accounting Impropriety

September

2026

An Enforcement Directorate (ED) search and surveillance operation at the Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (GMADA) office in Sahibzada Ajit Singh Nagar (SAS Nagar) ended on 24 Sep after 50 hours. The searches were a part of a money-laundering investigation, a land bank scam, and land acquisition and compensation payments. The prolonged searches led the state government to approach the Punjab and Haryana High Court (PHHC) late at night on 23 Sep. The matter was taken up in a special hearing, with proceedings continuing well past 1 am. PHHC subsequently appointed a senior-rank warrant officer to monitor the search and seizure operations and submit a report. While the ED was conducting the searches under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, the Panjab government raised concerns before the court over the manner and duration of the operation, and the alleged detention of senior officials. The ED team took over 30 bags of seized documents and hard discs. ED says it has gathered 'substantial material' to proceed with the investigations. ED has alleged financial irregularities that could have caused a potential loss of nearly USD 1,042M to GMADA. ED said reserve prices of portions of its unsold land bank were engineered downward before auctions. The agency has also alleged that senior Aam Aadmi Party leaders Satyender Jain and Manish Sisodia held unofficial meetings with GMADA officials over master plans, land auctions, and other key decisions. Sisodia rejected the allegations as 'false, baseless, and politically motivated'. According to the ED, critical decisions on fresh auctions, land acquisition, and compensation determination were allegedly taken informally under Jain’s instructions. ED claimed senior GMADA officials carried files outside Punjab Urban Development Authority Bhawan (mansion) for meetings with Jain and his Officer on Special Duty Amarender Jha. Meanwhile, Panjab Accountant General Abhay Kumar told the PHHC that USD 666M deposited with the state treasury was liable to be kept by the state as a 'dedicated fund' and its absorption in the consolidated fund to finance general budgetary deficits is an act of 'serious accounting impropriety'. He was responding to a Public Interest Litigation claiming that such an amount was required to be appropriated specifically for compliance under Section 10(3) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and should have been kept separately (earlier coverage).