Unblocking a Stalled Resolution Plan: Supreme Court Steps In on Access Road and Approvals for Ghaziabad’s Sushant Aquapolis

Case at a glance: Where an approved resolution plan for the Sushant Aquapolis project had stalled because the Ghaziabad Development Authority withheld licence renewal and building plan sanction, the Supreme Court worked through a series of hearings to a practical solution: the resolution applicant will build a 24-metre access road without claiming title, access will be at one non-exclusive point fixed by the GDA, and the GDA must consider the building plan without delay.

One City Infrastructure is the successful resolution applicant for M/s Ansal Urban Condominium Pvt. Ltd., the corporate debtor that promoted Sushant Aquapolis. Its plan under Section 31 IBC stalled because the GDA withheld renewal of the development licence and sanction of a revised building plan. The licence stands in the name of respondent no. 3 over 99 acres, of which only 26 acres are developed, with some towers in dilapidated condition.

The GH-1 plot had no functional access road; a 24-metre road on three boundaries existed on the GDA’s map but had not been maintained. By orders of 29 and 30 July 2026 the Court directed the State and GDA to decide the issues and ordered a site inspection. The GDA Vice-Chairman then filed an affidavit setting out an action plan, and the State and GDA decided to grant permission subject to conditions.

The Key Question Before the Court

How can a court help implement an approved resolution plan that is stuck on access and planning approvals, without prejudicing third-party rights?

A Practical, Supervised Solution

Respondent no. 3 argued that any approval must route through him as licence and lease holder, while the resolution applicant said the absence of access blocked development and offered to rebuild the road without claiming title. The homebuyers said the GDA’s refusal rested on technical grounds. The Court found it appropriate “in the facts and circumstances” that the resolution applicant build the 24-metre pathway along the three boundaries and then apply to the GDA.

To protect respondent no. 3, the Court directed that “the access will be, only at one point, as decided by the GDA”, and that it “shall not be exclusive and shall also be facilitated for use by the 3rd respondent”. The resolution applicant must complete the action items in the GDA affidavit, and the GDA must consider the building plan without delay.

What the Court Actually Held

• The resolution applicant shall build the 24-metre pathway on three boundaries of GH-1 without claiming title.
• Access shall be at one point decided by the GDA, non-exclusive and available to respondent no. 3.
• The GDA shall consider the building plan without delay once the action items are completed.
• The appeal was disposed of with liberty to seek restoration if an impediment arises; only the majority homebuyers’ intervention was allowed.

Why This Judgment Matters

• It shows the Court actively facilitating implementation of resolution plans for homebuyers.
• It balances the resolution applicant’s needs with the rights of a third-party licence holder.
• It pushes planning authorities to decide rather than stall.

What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?

For Resolution Applicants

• Offer practical undertakings, such as building infrastructure without claiming title, to unlock approvals.
• Track and complete authority action plans filed on affidavit.

For Authorities and Homebuyers

• Expect court-supervised timelines where approvals hold up a resolution plan.
• Homebuyer groups should coordinate through a single representative intervention.

Key Takeaways

Frequently Asked Questions

Sushant Aquapolis in Ghaziabad, promoted by the corporate debtor Ansal Urban Condominium.

No. It must build the road without claiming any title to it.

The appeal was disposed of, but parties can seek restoration if an impediment arises.

Conclusion