One City Infrastructure Private Limited vs Ghaziabad Development Authority

Court
Supreme Court

2026 INSC 962
Non-Reportable


IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Civil Appeal No. 4473 of 2026


One City Infrastructure Private Limited
….Appellant
Versus
Ghaziabad Development Authority and Ors.
….Respondents

O R D E R

‘Sushant Aquapolis’ is a castle-in-the-air, promoted as a Group
Housing cluster by the second respondent, M/s Ansal Urban
Condominium Private Limited which has turned a Corporate Debtor
(CD). The appellant herein is the Successful Resolution Applicant (SRA).
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,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
HARPREET KAUR 2016 (IBC).
Date: 2026.09.07
16:57:21 IST
Reason:
Page 1 of 8

Civil Appeal No.4473 of 2026

2. We hence passed an order dated 30.07.2026 which is extracted
hereinbelow: -
“1. In pursuance of our order passed yesterday, i.e., dated
29.07.2026, Mr. Guruprasad, Principal Secretary, Housing and
Development Authority, Government of U.P. has joined the
proceedings online. Mr. Nand Kishore Kalal, Vice-Chairman,
Ghaziabad Development Authority is personally present in the
Court today. Mr. Kalal is represented today by Ms. Madhavi
Divan, the learned senior counsel.

2. We heard Ms. Dr. Menaka Guruswamy, the learned senior
counsel appearing for the home-buyers, Mr. Nikhil Goel, the
learned senior counsel appearing for the SRA and on the other
hand, today, we also have Mr. Vikas Singh, the learned senior
counsel appearing for the respondent no.3.

3. According to Dr. Menaka Guruswamy, the core issue that
falls for the consideration of this Court is whether the
Ghaziabad Development Authority (GDA) can lawfully continue
to withhold renewal of the development license and sanction of
the revised building plan and, thereby, stall the
implementation of the resolution plan already approved under
Section 31 of the IBC.

4. According to Dr. Guruswamy, the refusal at the end of the
GDA is on technical grounds. At this stage, we must record what
has been given to understand by Mr. Vikas Singh, the learned
senior counsel appearing for the respondent no.3. According
to Mr. Vikas Singh, the development license is not in the name
of the SRA. The development license is in the name of the
respondent no.3. To put it briefly, what we have been given to
understand by Mr. Vikas Singh is that he holds the development
license for 99 acres. Whatever development has been
undertaken is on 26 acres of land. He is in possession of the
balance portion of the land in question and he also proposes to
develop the balance portion in future.

5. Mr. Singh does not dispute the fact that few towers have come
up on the land admeasuring 26 acres. According to him,
whatever construction has come up is in a very dilapidated
Page 2 of 8

Civil Appeal No.4473 of 2026

condition today. He has many proposals to put forward with
respect to the development of this 26 acres of land also. At this
point of time, we do not want to say anything in this regard.

6. Today, all that we intend to do is to direct the State of U.P.
and the GDA to sit together and take one final decision with
regard to the development license and sanction of the revised
building plans. To put it in other words, whatever proposal has
been forwarded by the GDA to the State should be discussed at
the earliest and a reasoned order needs to be passed at the end
of it with regard to what we have observed aforesaid.

7. Let this exercise be undertaken at the earliest and an
appropriate decision be placed before this Court within a
period of two weeks from today. Once we are in receipt of the
final decision that the Government would take in consultation
with the GDA, we shall, thereafter proceed to discuss further
issues.

8. We impress upon Sh. Guruprasad as well as Sh. Kalal to have
a thorough inspection of the entire site in question. They should
visit the site with surveyors and officers who are experts in
preparing sketches.

9. It shall be ensured that the 26 acres can be made habitable
and access can be ensured without impinging upon the balance
properties which is in the possession of the respondent no.3.

10. If the State and the GDA wants any assistance or any further
information from the parties concerned, it shall be open for
them to call them. We make it further clear that the inspection
shall be in the presence of all the parties concerned.

11. Post the matter on 20.08.2026.”

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.
Page 3 of 8

Civil Appeal No.4473 of 2026

4. Today when the matter was posted, we were taken through the
affidavit of 19.08.2026 filed by the Vice-Chairman, GDA. We extract
paragraph 11 of the said affidavit: -
“11. In compliance with Para No.7 of order dated 30.07.2026 of
the Hon'ble Court the action plan qua the plot in question is as
under:

(i) In compliance with the directions of the Hon'ble Court, the
site in question has been inspected; a TSS survey has been
conducted and a sketch has been prepared.

(ii) With respect to the plot in question, the Ghaziabad
Development Authority has duly disposed of the representation
dated 09.12.2025 submitted by the applicant, M/s Ansal Urban
Condominium Pvt. Ltd., through One City Infrastructure: Pvt.
Ltd., in terms of the order dated 07.11.2025 passed by the
Hon'ble NCLT.

(iii) Pursuant to the order passed by the Hon'ble Court,
guidance relating the integrated township policy was provided
in the meetings chaired by the Principal Secretary, Housing and
Urban Planning Department, U.P. In accordance with the
directions, the disposal of the representation dated 09.12.2025
has been approved by the Authority Board.

(iv) M/s Ansal Urban Condominium Pvt. Ltd., has submitted an
affidavit dated 17.08.2026, intimating that it shall submit the
building plan or revised building plan within 30 days.

(v) Upon M/s Ansal Urban Condominium Pvt. Ltd. submitting an
online application for the building plan in accordance with the
provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Model Building Construction
and Development Bye-laws, 2025 with respect of Plot No. GH-1
through the FASTPASS portal(map.up.gov.in), the Authority will
sanction the plan in accordance with law, keeping in view the
interests of the home buyers.

(vi) To ensure access of the home buyers up to the approach
road, following sanction of the plan, the applicant, M/s Ansal
Page 4 of 8

Civil Appeal No.4473 of 2026

Urban Condominium Pvt. Ltd., through One City Infrastructure
Pvt. Ltd., shall undertake all internal development works in
respect of Plot No. GH-1 and the external development works
up to the approach road. In proportion to the plot in question
within the Integrated Township, it shall also undertake
construction of EWS/LIG buildings and development of other
necessary facilities, with due regard to the interests of the home
buyers. AUCPL/Appellant has furnished its written consent to
the aforesaid by way of an affidavit.”

5. A difficulty was pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel Dr.
Manu Abhishek Singhvi appearing for the appellant that there is no
proper access to the property which is classified as Group Housing-1
(GH-1) plot which hampers the developmental activities, which would
be in successful implementation of the resolution plan.
rd
6. Mr.Rajiv Shakdher, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 3
respondent however, would point out from the map produced by the
GDA itself, in its report dated 19.08.2026 as Annexure A2, that there is a
24-meter-wide road going all around the property. The map emphasize
that GH-1 has 10.548793 hectares in which the SRA is intending to build
in accordance with the resolution plan. We see that the map as produced
by the 3rd respondent indicates on three sides i.e., on the entire width
of the north-eastern boundary, the south-eastern boundary and the
south-western boundary, a 24-meter-wide pathway.
7. However, it is submitted by Dr. Singhvi that the same is not
functional for reason of lack of maintenance. Dr. Shinghvi, on
Page 5 of 8

Civil Appeal No.4473 of 2026

instructions also undertakes that his client would take up the
reconstruction of the road lying on the entire width of the three
boundaries of the plot GH-1 without claiming any title on the road which
would be developed.
8. Mr. Shakdher, however, would insist that the lease of the entire
rd
land including GH-I being with the 3 respondent, any approval of the
rd
plan has to be routed through the 3 respondent. 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. 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.
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. 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. Insofar as the
compliance as indicated in paragraph No.11, extracted hereinabove,
Page 6 of 8

Civil Appeal No.4473 of 2026

the same shall be done by the SRA expeditiously and the GDA shall also
consider it without any time lapse.
10. 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.
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.
12. We make it clear that this order is passed in the presence of the
intervenors who are the majority of the homeowners/purchasers, whose
application alone is allowed and the other intervening applications
stands rejected.


.……………………………... J.
(J. B. PARDIWALA)


..………….…………………. J.
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)

Page 7 of 8

Civil Appeal No.4473 of 2026

NEW DELHI;
AUGUST 31, 2026.
Page 8 of 8

Civil Appeal No.4473 of 2026