In a relief to home buyers of the Ghaziabad-based housing project 'Sushant Aquapolis,' the Supreme Court recently cleared the path for implementation of the resolution plan of the corporate debtor, M/s Ansal Urban Condominium Private Limited, which had promoted the group housing cluster.

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran accepted the Successful Resolution Applicant (SRA) demand in a hearing took place on August 31, permitting them to develop a 24-meter-wide pathway on three boundaries of the stalled "Sushant Aquapolis" project, without claiming any title over the land, to unlock the implementation of a resolution plan.

“…we deem it appropriate that the SRA i.e., the appellant herein carry out the development of the pathway with the 24-meter width on the three boundaries of the plot GH-1, on which the appellant or their assignees shall not raise any claim of title and then make necessary applications to the GDA. After completion of the project, they shall only be provided with access to the property through the said way, causing minimum disturbance to the road.”, the Court said.

“…We make it clear that the appellant or its assignees cannot claim access through the whole of the road on the three boundaries and the access will be, only at one point, as decided by the GDA. The said access shall not be exclusive and shall also be facilitated for use by the 3rd respondent who has properties around the plot GH-1.”, the Court clarified.

The appellant, One City Infrastructure Private Limited, is the Successful Resolution Applicant (SRA) for the project. The resolution plan, approved under Section 31 of the IBC, faced multiple difficulties, including delays by the Ghaziabad Development Authority (GDA) in renewing the development license and sanctioning the revised building plan.

The development license for the 99-acre land is held by the 3rd respondent, not the Appellant-SRA. While development has been undertaken on 26 acres, the 3rd respondent claims possession of the balance portion and proposes to develop it in the future.

The 3rd respondent admitted that towers have come up on the 26 acres but claimed they are in a "dilapidated condition."

On July 30, 2026, the Court passed a comprehensive interim order directing the State of Uttar Pradesh and the Ghaziabad Development Authority to consult and take a final decision within two weeks. The Court also directed the Vice-Chairman of GDA and the Principal Secretary, Housing, to conduct a thorough inspection of the site.

Pursuant to these directions, the GDA filed an affidavit on August 19, 2026, outlining its action plan. The affidavit stated that the GDA had disposed of the representation, provided guidance on integrated township policy, and would sanction the building plan upon online application, keeping in view the interests of home buyers.

During the latest hearing that took place on August 31, the SRA pointed out that there was no proper access to the GH-1 plot, which hampered developmental activities. The 3rd respondent, however, produced a map showing a 24-meter-wide road going around the property on three sides.

The SRA submitted that the road was not functional due to lack of maintenance and undertook to reconstruct the road without claiming any title.

The Court, considering the practical difficulties and the need to balance the interests of all parties, devised a pragmatic solution allowing the Appellant to develop a 24-meter-wide pathway on three boundaries of the stalled project.

The Court specifically appreciated the cooperation of government officials:

"We appreciate the alacrity with which Mr. Nand Kishore Kalal, the Vice-Chairman of the GDA and Mr. Guruprasad, Principal Secretary, Housing and Development Authority, Government of U.P., responded to our directions; who had also been assisting us in Court, at the time of hearing.", the Court recorded.

Cause Title: One City Infrastructure Private Limited Versus Ghaziabad Development Authority and Ors.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 910

Click here to download order

Appearance:

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Abhishek Singhvi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Nikhil Nayyar, Sr. Adv. Ms. Anuja Pethia, AOR Ms. Kshirja Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Noor Shergill, Adv. Mr. Rishabh Govila, Adv. Mr. Rishabh Nigam, Adv. Ms. Amisha Aggarwal, Adv. Ms. Nanki Cheema, Adv. Mr. Aditya Vikram Dhingra, Adv. Mr. Subham Jain, Adv.

For Respondent(s) :Mr. Rajiv Shakdher, Sr. Adv. Ms. Madhavi Goradia Divan, Sr. Adv. Dr Menaka Guruswamy, Sr. Adv. Ms. Aparajita Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Vikas Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rachit Mittal, AOR Mr. Parish Mishra, Adv. Mr. Kanishk Raj, Adv. Ms. Srishti Agrawaal, Adv. Ms. Aayushi Kiran, Adv. Mr. Shivansh Bansal, Adv. M/s Kings And Alliance Llp, AOR Mr. Mohit Chaudhary, Adv. Ms. Puja Sharma, Adv. Mr. Kunal Sachdeva, Adv. Ms. Madhuri Jain, Adv. Mr. Naveen Sharma, Adv. Mr. Lakshay Yadav, Adv. Ms. Aarushi Suri, Adv. Mr. Sarthak Tagra, Adv. Ms. Shreya Pandey, Adv. Ms. Mansi Mehta, Adv. Ms. Eisha Jain, Adv. Mr. Karan Khetani, Adv. Mr. Niyas Valiyathodi, Adv. Mr. Avinash Kr. Lakhanpal, AOR Ms. Ms. Shaswati Parhi, Adv. Mr. Nishant Verma, AOR Ms. Maulshree Pathak, AOR Mr. Prukhar Shukla, Adv. Mr. Shubham Rajhans, Adv. Mr. Ishank Ranjan, Adv. Dr. Sasmit Patra, Adv. Mr. Shashank Bajpai, Adv. Mr. Karan Khetani, Adv. Ms. Aashna Mehra, Adv. Mr. Akshit Saxena, Adv. Mr. Gopi Chand, Adv. Ms. Vidula Mehrotra, AOR Mr. Shaurya Sahay, AOR Mr. Aman Jaiswal, Adv. Ms. Sharvi Sharma, Adv. Ms. Akansha Pandey, Adv. Mr. Avinash Kr. Lakhanpal, AOR