The Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) of India has revealed significant procedural deficiencies in the operations of the Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority (GNIDA), pointing to irregularities in planning, land acquisition, pricing, and allotment that resulted in notional losses amounting to ₹13,362 crore for the state treasury.

The performance audit, which spanned from 2005-06 to 2017-18 and was subsequently updated to April 2021, indicated that irregularities in the allotment of group housing plots alone contributed to ₹10,732 crore in outstanding dues. These deficiencies not only depleted state revenue but also postponed housing projects, leaving numerous homebuyers in a state of distress.

According to the report, dues worth ₹19,500 crore were pending as of April 2021 for land premium, lease rent, and interest — largely from allotments made since GNIDA’s inception in 1991.

The findings, based on an audit conducted between December 2018 and November 2019, were tabled in the Uttar Pradesh Assembly on Wednesday by state parliamentary affairs minister Suresh Kumar Khanna during the ongoing Monsoon session.

Vinod Kumar, GNIDA’s general manager (finance), said corrective steps were being taken: “Following the CAG report, we have revised our allotment policies to prevent errors in future. The staff is working on recovering the outstanding dues in line with the CAG’s recommendations.”

Between 2005-06 and 2014-15, GNIDA allotted 94 group housing plots — later subdivided into 186 — covering about 2,017 acres. No new allotments were made in this category after 2014-15. By April 2021, only 27 projects (18% of the targeted 148) were completed, while 95 allottees had not even partially completed construction. Many homebuyers have been waiting up to eight years for possession.

Dues were pending from 81% of allottees, with ₹7,100 crore overdue for more than three years in 66 cases. Despite clear defaults, the authority failed to cancel these plots as required under allotment terms.

The report also revealed that eight out of nine plot schemes launched during this period were initiated without prior board approval. In three cases, they were never even placed before the board for ex-post facto approval.

The CAG concluded that GNIDA showed “serious lapses of probity, integrity, and ethics,” failing to act against defaulting builders and its own officials. The situation reflected both poor enforcement and disregard for financial discipline.

During land acquisition, officials misused urgency provisions meant for exceptional circumstances, sidestepping farmers’ rights. Allotments were marred by selective relaxation of brochure conditions, underpricing of plots, reduction in allotment money, and permission to mortgage despite outstanding dues. Builders were allowed to subdivide, exit, or transfer plots before completing projects.

The audit said officials acted “in clear breach of public trust” and in “complete disregard to the interest of GNIDA as well as ultimate buyers.”