The additional district judge has issued a show-cause notice to the land acquisition collector (LAC), Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (GMADA), over alleged non-compliance with court orders concerning compensation for land acquired from Motiaz Royale Estate.
The court, in its September 30 order in Motiaz Royale Estate vs GMADA, observed that despite its February 10, 2026 direction to deposit the entire compensation amount, GMADA had not complied with the order. A show-cause notice had earlier been issued on May 21, 2026, asking why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against the LAC.
The dispute relates to compensation for land covered by award No 569 dated May 18, 2018. The court noted that the original land acquisition (LA)-7 record showed ₹4,06,09,241 as payable to the applicants, but this was subsequently changed to ₹1,25,81,455 in amended LA-7 and LA-9 records.
GMADA’s LAC argued that the admissible amount under a Punjab government policy dated February 6, 2015, was ₹1,24,81,455 and that ₹3,05,33,313 had already been deposited in court through two cheques. He maintained that the February 10 order stood complied with and sought withdrawal of the show-cause notice.
The court, however, held that its February 10 order directed GMADA to deposit the entire compensation amount under Section 77(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. It also questioned the alteration of the LA-7 and LA-9 records.
{{/usCountry}}The court, however, held that its February 10 order directed GMADA to deposit the entire compensation amount under Section 77(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. It also questioned the alteration of the LA-7 and LA-9 records.
{{/usCountry}}The court observed that despite its specific directions, the entire amount had not been deposited and the original record had been changed. It concluded that there was a ‘clear cut case of contempt of court’ against Jindal and held that he was liable to face proceedings under Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
The court granted the petitioners liberty to file a separate contempt petition. The matter concerning the release of the compensation already deposited has been adjourned to October 30, 2026.