Public notice regarding form no 468 against Shri Kuldeep Sing S/O Sher Shing LOI 1070,1071,1072,1073,1074 Sector 101 IT City.

Overview

The Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (GMADA) issued a public notice concerning the proposed allotment of: Plot No. 463, Sector 66-Beta, S.A.S. Nagar The plot measures: 100 square yards and was earmarked against: Form No. 3574 dated 25 January 2018 under the ST Scheme.

Who Applied for the Plot?

According to the notice, the application was made by: Davinder Kumar and Surinder Kumar both sons of Gursharan Das, from Village Manauli, District S.A.S. Nagar. The application was based on land acquired under: Award No. 527

ST Certificates Submitted

The applicants attached copies of ST certificates issued against their acquired land. For Davinder Kumar: ST Certificate No. 858 dated 19 February 2014 For Surinder Kumar: ST Certificate No. 839 dated 19 February 2014 The notice states that each certificate related to acquired land measuring: 1 Bigha 6.26 Biswas

Earnest Money Deposited

The landowners also deposited: ₹1,00,000 as earnest money. The notice refers to: Receipt No. 64139 dated 25 January 2018 and a demand draft through HDFC Bank. The clearer copy appears to show the DD number as: 012880 dated 25 January 2018

What Was the Problem?

The issue arose because the receipt for the ₹1 lakh earnest-money deposit carried a different applicant name. The receipt reportedly mentioned: Davinder Singh, son of Gurman Singh instead of the names connected with Form No. 3574: Davinder Kumar and Surinder Kumar, sons of Gursharan Das

What Did the Applicants Tell GMADA?

According to the notice, Davinder Kumar and Surinder Kumar informed the authority that:

• the ₹1,00,000 earnest money had actually been deposited by them; and
• the incorrect name on the receipt was due to a clerical error in the office.

They therefore requested GMADA to proceed with allotment of the plot earmarked against their application.

Which Plot Had Been Earmarked?

The plot identified in the notice is: Plot No. 463 located in: Sector 66-Beta, S.A.S. Nagar against: Form No. 3574

Why Was This Public Notice Issued?

Before taking further action in the case, GMADA invited objections from the general public and any other interested person. Anyone having an objection regarding the proposed allotment was given an opportunity to submit it before GMADA proceeded further.

Time Allowed for Objections

The notice provides: 15 days from the date of publication for submission of objections. Any objection had to be presented before the concerned GMADA office within this period.

What Happens After the 15-Day Period?

The notice states that objections received after the prescribed period would not be considered. If no valid objection was received within the specified period, GMADA could proceed with action relating to issuance of allotment for: Plot No. 463, Sector 66-Beta against: Form No. 3574

Does This Mean the Plot Was Already Allotted?

No. This is a pre-allotment public objection notice. It confirms that:

• the plot had been earmarked;
• the applicants had requested issuance of allotment;
• a name discrepancy existed in the payment receipt; and
• GMADA was inviting objections before proceeding.

It does not itself confirm that the final allotment letter was issued. A later allotment or Estate Office record would be required to establish the final outcome.

How to read the related notice history

Later notices tracked on this site do not, by their titles alone, establish a connection to Shri Kuldeep Sing, the five LOIs, or Sector 101 IT City. A shared reference to IT City or a land-related process is not enough to show that records concern the same person, property, or scheme.

The separately listed items appeared in this sequence:

• In May 2025, a notice title referred to Form No. 4560 and a 750 IT City scheme in SAS Nagar, naming Harbhajan Singh, son of Joginder Singh Saini, resident of Phase-2 Patiala. This is a different named person and form, and the supplied information does not link it to the January notice.
• In December 2025, the site tracked Eco City 3 land-pooling forms.
• In February 2026, it tracked an updated Eco City 3 land-pooling form.
• In October 2026, it tracked Eco City 3 environment-clearance and deadline-extension notices.

The list establishes that later items appeared under the Eco City 3 name. It does not establish that the January 2025 notice was part of that sequence, that Sector 101 IT City and Eco City 3 refer to the same project, or that a later item changed the status of these LOIs. The supplied material contains no documented planning history for the area named in this notice.

Treat these entries as separate records unless a document provides a direct link. The later publication dates show when those other items entered the tracked notice history, not a progression in the status of Form No. 468. Their titles do not document a project stage for the person or LOIs named here, or establish that the Eco City 3 items continue the same land matter.

What is known about the location

The title names Sector 101 IT City, but the supplied research gives no village, tehsil, district-level location, map reference, or planning document that locates the sector more precisely. It also does not establish its relationship to particular roads, landmarks, or other named sectors. Adding such details without a supporting source could misdirect readers trying to identify the land involved.

SAS Nagar appears in the title of the separate May 2025 notice about the 750 IT City scheme. That reference belongs to the other notice and does not establish the administrative jurisdiction or exact geography of the Sector 101 IT City matter. The available information supports identifying the sector as named in this notice, but not describing its location or boundaries in greater detail.

No supplied source defines the extent of Sector 101 IT City or identifies villages or parcels associated with it. The separate use of “IT City” in the May notice also does not show that the two references share a boundary, scheme, or administrative file. The record supplied here cannot support a more precise geographic description.

Why the notice's limits matter

The title identifies an individual and five LOI numbers, which gives readers specific references to check against the notice and any records that explicitly match them. It does not show whether the notice concerns an allotment, claim, correction, hearing, transfer, or another administrative matter. Assigning it a particular GMADA project, land-acquisition step, or planning purpose would go beyond the available information.

The later Eco City 3 entries concern a separately named process in the site's notice records. They provide context for readers reviewing the broader list, but do not establish a development relationship with Sector 101 IT City. Treat the two sets of records as distinct unless a source explicitly connects their names, forms, land, or scheme.

The title's five LOI numbers help identify which references to check, but the supplied page data does not define what they mean in this case or state whether they represent active, completed, or superseded matters. The references alone do not establish eligibility, ownership, project progress, or a person's rights. Their administrative significance depends on details in the notice and records that explicitly identify the same person, form, LOIs, or land.

Details to verify in the document

• Notice Date: January 14, 2025

For more information and complete details, click on “Open Original Document” to view the official source.