SRA May Rebuild 24-Metre Road to Implement Stalled Resolution Plan: Supreme Court in One City Infrastructure v. Ghaziabad Development Authority [2026 INSC 962]

In One City Infrastructure Private Limited v. Ghaziabad Development Authority & Ors. (2026 INSC 962), the Supreme Court dealt with a resolution plan approved under Section 31 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, stalled because the GDA withheld renewal of the development licence and sanction of the revised building plan (para 1). After the Court directed the State of U.P. and the GDA to take a final decision, they agreed to grant permission subject to conditions (paras 2–4). A Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran then permitted the successful resolution applicant to develop the 24-metre road on three sides of plot GH-1 without claiming title, with non-exclusive access at a single point decided by the GDA (paras 8–9).

Status: Civil appeal disposed of with directions; liberty to seek restoration if any impediment arises; only the majority home-buyers' intervention application allowed (paras 8–9, 11–12).

Headnote: Implementing a Stalled IBC Resolution Plan

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Section 31 – Approved resolution plan – Group housing project of corporate debtor – Development authority withholding renewal of development licence and sanction of revised building plan – Directions to State and authority to decide – Action plan on affidavit – Access to plot – 24-metre road on three boundaries – Successful resolution applicant to rebuild road without claim of title – Single non-exclusive access point.

Held: (i) The GDA had withheld renewal of the development licence and sanction of the revised building plan, stalling implementation of the resolution plan approved under Section 31 of the IBC (para 1).

(ii) On the Court's order dated 30.07.2026, the State and the GDA together decided to grant the necessary permission subject to conditions, and the GDA's Vice-Chairman placed an action plan on affidavit (paras 2–4).

(iii) Though the 3rd respondent insisted that any approval had to be routed through it as lessee, the Court found it appropriate that the SRA develop the 24-metre pathway on the three boundaries of plot GH-1 and then apply to the GDA (paras 6, 8).

(iv) The SRA or its assignees cannot claim title over the road or access through its whole length; access will be at one point decided by the GDA and will not be exclusive (paras 8–9).

(v) The SRA must expeditiously carry out the compliances in the GDA's action plan, and the GDA must consider them without delay (para 9).

(vi) Either party may seek restoration of the appeal if any impediment arises (para 11).

(paras 1–12)

Case Details: One City Infrastructure v. Ghaziabad Development Authority (2026 INSC 962)

Final Outcome: Civil appeal disposed of with directions on road development and access, and liberty to seek restoration on any impediment.

Case: One City Infrastructure Private Limited v. Ghaziabad Development Authority & Ors.

Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 962

Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 4473 of 2026

Court: Supreme Court of India (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction) – Non-Reportable

Date of Decision: 31 August 2026

Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran (order; no named author)

Relevant Acts & Sections: Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Section 31; Uttar Pradesh Model Building Construction and Development Bye-laws, 2025 (referred to in the GDA's affidavit)

Impugned Order(s): The order does not identify the impugned order; it refers to an order dated 07.11.2025 of the NCLT in the GDA's affidavit (para 4)

Counsel: Dr. Manu Abhishek Singhvi, Senior Counsel, for the appellant; Mr. Rajiv Shakdher, Senior Counsel, for the 3rd respondent (paras 5–6). The order of 30.07.2026 records Dr. Menaka Guruswamy for the home-buyers, Mr. Nikhil Goel for the SRA, Mr. Vikas Singh for the 3rd respondent and Ms. Madhavi Divan for the GDA's Vice-Chairman, all as senior counsel (para 2)

Source: Supreme Court of India (official website)

Key Holdings of the Supreme Court

• The Court used directions to the State and the GDA to unblock a resolution plan stalled for want of a development licence and revised building plan sanction (paras 1–3).
• The GDA's action plan provides that the corporate debtor, through the SRA, will submit a building plan within 30 days, which the GDA will sanction in accordance with law keeping home-buyers' interests in view (para 4).
• The SRA may develop the 24-metre pathway on the north-eastern, south-eastern and south-western boundaries of plot GH-1, without claiming title, and then apply to the GDA (paras 6–8).
• Access to GH-1 will be at one point fixed by the GDA, not exclusive, and also available to the 3rd respondent, which holds properties around the plot (para 9).
• The SRA must carry out the action plan expeditiously, and the GDA must consider it without any time lapse (para 9).

Brief Facts of the Case

Sushant Aquapolis was promoted as a group housing cluster by the 2nd respondent, M/s Ansal Urban Condominium Private Limited, which became a corporate debtor. The appellant, One City Infrastructure Private Limited, is the successful resolution applicant (SRA). Implementation of the resolution plan approved under Section 31 of the IBC was stalled because the GDA withheld renewal of the development licence and sanction of the revised building plan (para 1).

On 30.07.2026, the Court recorded the 3rd respondent's stand that the development licence for 99 acres was in its name, not the SRA's. Development had been undertaken on 26 acres, where a few towers had come up in a dilapidated condition, and the 3rd respondent held the balance land (para 2, extracting paras 4–5 of the 30.07.2026 order).

The Court directed the State of U.P. and the GDA to take a final reasoned decision on the development licence and revised building plans within two weeks, after a site inspection with surveyors in the presence of all parties. It also directed them to ensure that the 26 acres could be made habitable and accessible without impinging on the 3rd respondent's land (para 2, extracting paras 6–10 of that order).

The State and the GDA decided to grant permission subject to conditions (para 3). The GDA's Vice-Chairman filed an affidavit dated 19.08.2026 setting out an action plan (para 4).

For the appellant, it was pointed out that GH-1 had no proper access. The 3rd respondent relied on the GDA's map showing a 24-metre road on three sides of the 10.548793-hectare plot. The appellant said the road was not functional for lack of maintenance and undertook to rebuild it without claiming title (paras 5–7).

Issues Before the Supreme Court

1. Whether the GDA could continue to withhold renewal of the development licence and sanction of the revised building plan, stalling the approved resolution plan (para 2, extracting para 3 of the 30.07.2026 order).
2. How access to plot GH-1 should be provided for implementing the resolution plan, given the 3rd respondent's claim over the surrounding land (paras 5–9).

Court's Findings and Reasoning

Directions to State and GDA (para 2): By its order of 30.07.2026, the Court directed the State of U.P. and the GDA to sit together and take one final reasoned decision on the development licence and revised building plans. It asked the senior officers to inspect the site with surveyors and experts in the presence of all parties.

Decision to grant permission (para 3): Pursuant to that order, the State and the GDA together decided to accord the necessary permission subject to the fulfilment of conditions.

GDA's action plan (para 4): The affidavit of 19.08.2026 recorded that the site was inspected, a TSS survey was conducted and a sketch prepared. The representation dated 09.12.2025 was disposed of in terms of the NCLT's order of 07.11.2025 and approved by the Authority Board. The corporate debtor undertook to submit the building plan within 30 days, and the GDA would sanction it in accordance with law. The applicant, through the SRA, would undertake internal and external development works and proportionate EWS/LIG construction.

Access to GH-1 (paras 5–7): The appellant said GH-1 lacked proper access. The GDA's own map showed a 24-metre road on the entire width of the north-eastern, south-eastern and south-western boundaries. The appellant submitted that the road was not functional for lack of maintenance and undertook to rebuild it without claiming title.

3rd respondent's objection (para 8): The 3rd respondent insisted that since the lease of the entire land including GH-1 was with it, any approval had to be routed through it. In the facts and circumstances, the Court nonetheless allowed the SRA to develop the pathway and then apply to the GDA.

Limits on access (para 9): The appellant or its assignees cannot claim access through the whole road. Access will be at only one point, as decided by the GDA, and will be non-exclusive, also facilitated for the 3rd respondent.

Final Outcome and Directions

• The SRA to develop the 24-metre pathway on the three boundaries of plot GH-1, without the SRA or its assignees raising any claim of title, and then make the necessary applications to the GDA (para 8).
• After completion of the project, access to the property only through the said way, causing minimum disturbance to the road (para 8).
• Access only at one point decided by the GDA, non-exclusive, and facilitated for the 3rd respondent (para 9).
• The SRA to carry out the compliances in paragraph 11 of the GDA's affidavit expeditiously, and the GDA to consider them without any time lapse (para 9).
• The Court recorded its appreciation of the GDA's Vice-Chairman and the Principal Secretary, Housing, Government of U.P., for their prompt response (para 10).
• Civil appeal disposed of, with liberty to either party to seek restoration on any impediment (para 11).
• Only the intervention application of the majority of homeowners/purchasers allowed; other intervention applications rejected (para 12).

Legal Principle Laid Down

Where implementation of an approved resolution plan under Section 31 of the IBC is stalled by regulatory delays, the Supreme Court may direct the State and the development authority to take a time-bound, reasoned decision, and may craft practical arrangements to remove obstacles. Here, the successful resolution applicant was permitted to rebuild an existing public road to secure access, without acquiring any title over it and with only a single non-exclusive access point fixed by the authority.

Precedents Relied Upon

• No precedents are cited in this order.

Important Paragraphs of the Judgment

Verbatim extracts from the judgment. For the full text, refer to the judgment PDF below.

Para 1: "The resolution plan is facing multiple difficulties, one of which was the time taken by the Ghaziabad Development Authority (GDA) which has withheld the renewal of the development license and sanction of the revised building plan, stalling the implementation of the resolution plan approved under Section 31 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC)."

Para 3: "Pursuant to our order, the State and the GDA together took a decision to accord necessary permission subject to the fulfilment of the necessary conditions."

Para 8: "However, in the facts and circumstances of the case and also in the fitness of things, 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."

Para 9: "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."

Para 9: "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."

Para 11: "The Civil Appeal is disposed of, leaving liberty to either of the parties to approach this Court and seek for restoration of the appeal on any impediment being occasioned, with respect to the subject matter of this order."

Practical Impact of the Ruling

• For successful resolution applicants: Regulatory roadblocks to an approved plan can be addressed through time-bound directions to the State and development authorities (paras 2–3).
• For home-buyers: The GDA's action plan expressly requires plan sanction keeping home-buyers' interests in view, and the majority home-buyers' intervention was allowed (paras 4, 12).
• For development authorities: Authorities can be directed to inspect the site, decide pending proposals and consider compliances without delay (paras 2, 9).
• For landholders around a project: Access arrangements for the SRA are limited to one non-exclusive point, protecting neighbouring holders such as the 3rd respondent (para 9).
• For practitioners: The order is fact-specific and was passed in the facts and circumstances of the case, with liberty to seek restoration (paras 8, 11).

FAQs on Implementation of the Sushant Aquapolis Resolution Plan

1. What did the Supreme Court decide in One City Infrastructure v. Ghaziabad Development Authority?

It allowed the SRA to rebuild the 24-metre road on three sides of plot GH-1 and apply to the GDA, with a single non-exclusive access point and no claim of title (paras 8–9).

2. Why was the resolution plan stalled?

The GDA had withheld renewal of the development licence and sanction of the revised building plan (para 1).

3. What did the State and the GDA decide?

On the Court's direction, they decided to grant the necessary permission subject to conditions, and the GDA filed an action plan on affidavit (paras 3–4).

4. Can the SRA claim ownership of the road it rebuilds?

No. The SRA or its assignees cannot raise any claim of title over the road, nor claim access through its whole length (paras 8–9).

5. What if new obstacles arise?

Either party may approach the Supreme Court to seek restoration of the appeal if any impediment arises (para 11).

Keywords: 2026 INSC 962, One City Infrastructure v. Ghaziabad Development Authority, Sushant Aquapolis, Ansal Urban Condominium, successful resolution applicant, Section 31 IBC, resolution plan implementation, development licence, revised building plan, GDA, GH-1 plot, 24-metre road, home-buyers, Justice J.B. Pardiwala, Justice K. Vinod Chandran, Supreme Court non-reportable judgment

Related on LegalTaxGuru

• More Corporate Law Supreme Court Non-Reportable judgments
• Corporate Law articles

Download Judgment PDF – One City Infrastructure v. Ghaziabad Development Authority

Judgment PDF: 2026 INSC 962 – One City Infrastructure Private Limited v. Ghaziabad Development Authority & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 4473 of 2026) – Download Judgment PDF

Source: Supreme Court of India (official website).