Supreme Court Disposes Sushant Aquapolis Appeal, Directs SRA to Build Access Road Without Claiming Title

A bench of Justices Pardiwala and Vinod Chandran cleared the path for the Sushant Aquapolis resolution plan by directing the Successful Resolution Applicant to develop a 24-metre access road along three boundaries of plot GH-1, without asserting any title over it.

The Supreme Court on 31 August 2026 disposed of Civil Appeal No. 4473 of 2026, which arose from the troubled implementation of the resolution plan for Sushant Aquapolis, a group housing project in Ghaziabad promoted by M/s Ansal Urban Condominium Private Limited, a corporate debtor under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Successful Resolution Applicant (SRA), One City Infrastructure Private Limited, had been stalled by the Ghaziabad Development Authority's refusal to renew the development licence and sanction a revised building plan. The Court, after securing an undertaking on access and a compliance affidavit from the GDA, directed the SRA to reconstruct a 24-metre-wide road on three boundaries of the GH-1 plot without claiming title, and disposed of the appeal with liberty to seek restoration if any impediment arises.

How the Dispute Reached the Court

Sushant Aquapolis was described by the Court as “a castle-in-the-air” promoted as a group housing cluster. M/s Ansal Urban Condominium Private Limited, the project's developer, became a corporate debtor. One City Infrastructure Private Limited was approved as the Successful Resolution Applicant, and the resolution plan was sanctioned under Section 31 of the IBC. The difficulty was that the GDA withheld renewal of the development licence and declined to sanction the revised building plan, bringing implementation to a halt.

The core legal question before the Court, as articulated by Senior Counsel Dr. Menaka Guruswamy appearing for home-buyers, was whether the GDA could lawfully continue withholding the licence and plan sanction, thereby stalling a resolution plan already approved under Section 31 of the IBC.

The third respondent, through Senior Counsel Mr. Vikas Singh, placed a competing claim. The development licence, he submitted, was not in the name of the SRA but in the name of the third respondent, covering 99 acres. Development had taken place only on 26 acres, with the balance still in the third respondent's possession. The construction that had come up, he said, was in a dilapidated condition, and the third respondent had proposals of his own for those 26 acres as well as the remaining land.

The Court's Intervention in July 2026

On 30 July 2026, the Court passed an interim order requiring the State of Uttar Pradesh and the GDA to sit together and take a final, reasoned decision on the development licence and revised building plans. The Court directed that this decision be placed before it within two weeks. The Vice-Chairman of the GDA, Mr. Nand Kishore Kalal, was personally present in court, and Mr. Guruprasad, Principal Secretary, Housing and Development Authority, Government of U.P., had joined online. The Court further directed both officials to conduct a thorough site inspection with surveyors and experts capable of preparing sketches.

The July order also required that the 26-acre parcel be assessed for habitability and that access be ensured to it without impinging on the balance properties in possession of the third respondent. The matter was posted to 20 August 2026.

GDA's Compliance Affidavit and the Permissions Granted

Pursuant to the 30 July 2026 order, the State and the GDA together took a decision to accord necessary permissions subject to the fulfilment of specified conditions. The Vice-Chairman of the GDA filed an affidavit dated 19 August 2026. The Court extracted paragraph 11 of that affidavit in its final order. The key steps recorded in the affidavit were:

• A Total Station Survey (TSS) was conducted and a sketch was prepared following site inspection.
• The GDA disposed of the representation dated 9 December 2025 submitted by M/s Ansal Urban Condominium Private Limited through One City Infrastructure Private Limited, in terms of the NCLT order dated 7 November 2025.
• Guidance on the integrated township policy was provided in meetings chaired by the Principal Secretary, Housing and Urban Planning Department, U.P., and the disposal of the representation was approved by the Authority Board.
• M/s Ansal Urban Condominium Private Limited undertook to submit the building plan or revised building plan within 30 days.
• Upon submission of an online application through the FASTPASS portal (map.up.gov.in) in accordance with the Uttar Pradesh Model Building Construction and Development Bye-laws, 2025, the GDA committed to sanction the plan in accordance with law, keeping the interests of home-buyers in view.
• Following plan sanction, the applicant would carry out all internal development works for Plot No. GH-1 and external development works up to the approach road, along with construction of EWS/LIG buildings and other necessary facilities. One City Infrastructure Private Limited furnished written consent to these terms by affidavit.

The Access Road Dispute and the Court's Resolution

When the matter was taken up on 31 August 2026, Senior Counsel Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for the appellant, pointed out that there was no proper access to Plot GH-1, hampering development and thereby the implementation of the resolution plan.

Senior Counsel Mr. Rajiv Shakdher, appearing for the third respondent, responded by pointing to the GDA's own map produced as Annexure A2 to the 19 August 2026 report. That map showed a 24-metre-wide road running along the north-eastern boundary, the south-eastern boundary, and the south-western boundary of Plot GH-1, which measures 10.548793 hectares.

Dr. Singhvi acknowledged the road's existence on the map but submitted that it was not functional due to lack of maintenance. He then, on instructions, gave an undertaking on behalf of his client that One City Infrastructure would reconstruct the road lying along the entire width of the three boundaries of GH-1, without claiming any title over the road so developed.

Mr. Shakdher's position was that the lease of the entire land, including GH-1, vested in the third respondent, and that any approval of the building plan had therefore to be routed through the third respondent. The Court did not accept that the SRA's development activity should be channelled through the third respondent in the facts and circumstances.

What the Court Directed

Taking the undertaking on record, the Court directed One City Infrastructure to carry out development of the 24-metre-wide pathway along the three boundaries of Plot GH-1. Several conditions were attached:

• The appellant and its assignees shall not raise any claim of title over the road developed by them.
• After completion of the project, access to the property will be provided only at one point, as decided by the GDA. The access point shall not be exclusive and shall also be available to the third respondent, who has properties around GH-1.
• Compliance with the conditions set out in paragraph 11 of the GDA's affidavit shall be carried out by the SRA expeditiously, and the GDA shall consider it without any time lapse.

The Court specifically recorded its appreciation for the alacrity with which Mr. Nand Kishore Kalal, Vice-Chairman of the GDA, and Mr. Guruprasad, Principal Secretary, Housing and Development Authority, U.P., had responded to its directions and assisted the Court during hearing.

Outcome

The Civil Appeal was disposed of on 31 August 2026. Liberty was granted to either party to approach the Court and seek restoration of the appeal if any impediment arises with respect to the subject matter of the order. The intervenors, representing the majority of homeowners and purchasers, had been present throughout the proceedings; their application alone was allowed, and all other intervening applications were rejected. The order was passed by Justice J. B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran.