Advertisement
When should a housing society in Mumbai start considering re...
From GST on JDAs to SEBI’s REIT reclassification and the S...
Stay ahead in the world of real estate with our daily podcas...
Stay ahead in the world of real estate with our daily podcas...
The Ghaziabad Development Authority collected only about 50% of its compounding fee target for the current financial year, highlighting a shortfall in a key revenue stream. Against a target of around INR 103 crore, the authority managed to collect nearly INR 52 crore across its zones. Compounding fees are charged for minor deviations in building plans. Alongside this, the authority also lagged in mutation processing performance on the state dashboard. Officials have linked the shortfall to operational challenges and are planning corrective steps to improve collections and efficiency.
The Ghaziabad Development Authority (GDA) has recorded a noticeable shortfall in its revenue collection from compounding fees during the current financial year. The authority was able to achieve only about half of its target, reflecting weak performance in this segment. Advertisement
According to available data, GDA had set a target of around INR 103 crore from compounding charges but collected only about INR 52 crore across its eight zones. This gap indicates that either fewer property owners came forward for regularisation or enforcement at the ground level remained limited.
Compounding fees are levied when property owners seek approval for minor deviations in construction beyond sanctioned plans. These deviations are typically allowed up to a certain limit, generally around 10% of the approved area, subject to planning norms. The system is intended to regularise small violations while also generating revenue for the authority.
The fee structure varies depending on the type and use of the property. Residential properties are charged at approximately INR 482 per square metre of additional constructed area, while commercial properties attract nearly double the rate. The extent of permissible compounding also depends on plot size. Smaller plots are allowed more flexibility in adjusting side and rear setbacks, whereas larger plots have stricter limits, especially for front setbacks.
Zone-wise performance showed variation, with some areas contributing more to the overall collection than others. However, no zone was able to significantly close the gap against the target, indicating a broader issue rather than a localised one.
Apart from revenue concerns, GDA's performance in property mutation processing has also been below expectations. Despite handling a large volume of applications, the authority's disposal rate remained slightly lower than the benchmark set on the state monitoring dashboard. This affected its ranking among districts and pointed to delays in administrative processing.
Officials indicated that limited manpower and focus on ongoing development works in expanding areas impacted both enforcement and processing efficiency. They stated that efforts are being planned to strengthen monitoring, improve coordination across zones, and increase awareness among property owners regarding compounding provisions.
In recent years, GDA's financial position has already seen pressure due to delays in fund inflows and changes in regulatory processes. Earlier audit observations had also highlighted reduced revenue collections and inefficiencies in financial management. The current shortfall adds to those concerns and reflects the need for more consistent execution.
5th Jun, 2025
25th May, 2023
11th May, 2023
27th Apr, 2023
Advertisement
Facebook
Whatsapp
