GDA must process building-plan approvals while the SRA develops non-exclusive access roads without claiming title.

“Sushant Aquapolis” was a group-housing project promoted by M/s Ansal Urban Condominium Pvt. Ltd., which subsequently became a corporate debtor under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). The appellant, One City Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., was the Successful Resolution Applicant (SRA) under a resolution plan approved under Section 31 of the IBC. Implementation of the plan was impeded because the Ghaziabad Development Authority (GDA) had not renewed the development licence or sanctioned the revised building plan

The dispute concerned a Group Housing-1 (GH-1) plot measuring approximately 10.548793 hectares, forming part of a larger 99-acre development licence held by respondent no. 3; construction had previously been undertaken on approximately 26 acres

Pursuant to those directions, the State and GDA decided to grant the necessary permissions subject to compliance with specified conditions. The GDA reported that the site had been inspected, a survey and sketch had been prepared, and that the building plan would be sanctioned upon submission of an online application in accordance with the Uttar Pradesh Model Building Construction and Development Bye-laws, 2025

Whether the GDA and the State of Uttar Pradesh could continue withholding renewal of the development licence and sanction of the revised building plan, thereby obstructing implementation of the resolution plan approved under Section 31 of the IBC?

Whether adequate and non-exclusive access to the GH-1 plot could be secured without affecting the adjoining properties and possessory interests of respondent no. 3?

Whether the appellant could undertake development of the access road and apply directly to the GDA for the requisite approvals, notwithstanding respondent no. 3’s contention that approvals had to be routed through it as lessee of the larger property?

The Court applied Section 31 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, under which an approved resolution plan becomes binding on the corporate debtor and other stakeholders, while recognising that implementation remains subject to applicable statutory and regulatory requirements.

It also applied the regulatory framework governing building-plan approval, particularly the Uttar Pradesh Model Building Construction and Development Bye-laws, 2025, requiring submission of an online application through the prescribed FASTPASS portal before sanction of the building plan

The Court further relied on the principle that public authorities must take a reasoned and timely decision on permissions necessary for implementation of an approved resolution plan, and that site access could be regulated to protect competing property interests.

The Court treated the GDA’s decision-making delay as an impediment to implementation of the approved resolution plan and directed the State and GDA to undertake a site inspection and issue a reasoned decision concerning the development licence and revised building plans

After the GDA confirmed that permission would be granted subject to statutory compliance, the Court required the appellant to submit the building or revised building plan in accordance with the 2025 Bye-laws, after which the GDA was to consider and sanction it in accordance with law, keeping the interests of homebuyers in view.

Regarding access, the Court relied on the GDA’s map showing a 24-metre-wide road along three boundaries of the GH-1 plot. Since the appellant asserted that the road was not functional, it was permitted—and directed—to reconstruct the road along those boundaries without acquiring or asserting title over it

The Court balanced the appellant’s need for access against respondent no. 3’s adjoining interests by limiting the appellant’s access to one point determined by the GDA, making that access non-exclusive, and requiring that it also remain available to respondent no. 3.

The appellant was required to submit the building or revised building plan through the prescribed portal, and the GDA was directed to consider and sanction it in accordance with law without unnecessary delay

The appellant was also directed to undertake development or reconstruction of the 24-metre-wide access road along the three boundaries of the GH-1 plot, without claiming title over the road. Access was to be provided at a single point determined by the GDA, was not to be exclusive, and was also to be available to respondent no. 3

The Court granted liberty to the parties to seek restoration of the appeal if any impediment arose concerning the subject matter of the order

The intervention application of the majority of homeowners/purchasers was allowed, while the remaining intervention applications were rejected.