Thousands of hopes tied to the stalled Sushant Aquapolis housing project in Ghaziabad received a significant boost after the Supreme Court cleared the way for the implementation of its resolution plan.
The Court permitted the Successful Resolution Applicant (SRA), One City Infrastructure Private Limited, to develop a 24-metre-wide pathway along three boundaries of the GH-1 plot, a move aimed at resolving the long-standing access problem that had hindered the revival of the project.
A Bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran accepted the proposal during proceedings held on August 31, while making it clear that the developer would acquire no ownership rights over the land used for the pathway.
The Court directed the SRA to carry out the development work and subsequently approach the Ghaziabad Development Authority (GDA) for the necessary approvals. Once the project is completed, access to the property will be provided through the designated route in a manner that causes minimum disruption to the surrounding road network.
The Bench also placed strict limits on the access rights available to the SRA. It clarified that the developer and its assignees would not be entitled to use the entire road running along the three boundaries. Instead, access would be restricted to a single entry point to be identified by the GDA.
The access route will also not be exclusive. It will remain available for use by the third respondent, which owns properties surrounding the GH-1 plot.
Resolution Plan Faced Multiple Obstacles
One City Infrastructure Private Limited is the Successful Resolution Applicant for M/s Ansal Urban Condominium Private Limited, the corporate entity associated with the development of the Sushant Aquapolis group housing project.
Although the resolution plan had been approved under Section 31 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, its implementation ran into several hurdles. Among the major issues were delays in the renewal of the development licence and approval of a revised building plan.
The larger 99-acre parcel is covered by a development licence held by the third respondent rather than the SRA.
Development activity has already taken place on around 26 acres of the land. The remaining portion is claimed to be in the possession of the third respondent, which intends to undertake future development there.
The third respondent acknowledged that towers had been constructed on the 26-acre portion but maintained that the structures were in a dilapidated condition.
Court Had Earlier Ordered Site Inspection
The Supreme Court had previously intervened to push the matter forward. On July 30, 2026, it issued an extensive interim order requiring the Uttar Pradesh government and the GDA to hold consultations and arrive at a final decision within two weeks.
The Court had also directed the GDA Vice-Chairman and the Principal Secretary of the Housing Department to conduct a detailed inspection of the project site.
Following those directions, the GDA filed an affidavit on August 19 outlining the steps it intended to take.
According to the authority, the relevant representation had been disposed of, guidance had been provided regarding the integrated township policy, and the building plan could be considered once an online application was submitted. The authority also indicated that the interests of homebuyers would remain a key consideration.
Access Problem Became the Central Issue
During the August 31 hearing, the SRA highlighted the absence of proper access to the GH-1 plot, arguing that the situation had made further development difficult.
The third respondent, however, produced a map indicating the existence of a 24-metre-wide road running along three sides of the property.
The SRA responded that the route was not practically usable because it had not been maintained. It offered to reconstruct the pathway at its own cost while expressly giving up any claim to ownership over the land.
The Supreme Court accepted this arrangement as a practical solution to break the deadlock.
By allowing the development of the pathway while denying the SRA any title or exclusive access rights, the Court sought to balance the interests of the resolution applicant, the landholder and, most importantly, the homebuyers waiting for the project to move forward.
The Bench also recorded its appreciation for the prompt response of senior government officials who acted on the Court’s earlier directions and assisted during the proceedings.
