"Your Callous Attitude Leads To Such Litigations": Supreme Court Pulls Up GDA, UP Govt. Over Delay In Ansal Resolution Plan Implementation
Kirit Singhania
30 July 2026 12:09 PM IST
The Supreme Court on Thursday criticised the Ghaziabad Development Authority (GDA) and the Uttar Pradesh government for delaying approvals required to implement the resolution plan for Ansal Urban Condominiums Pvt. Ltd. (AUCPL), saying the authorities' "callous attitude" had forced around 1,600 homebuyers to litigate for nearly two decades.
The court was hearing an appeal filed by One City Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., the successful resolution applicant (SRA) for AUCPL, against the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal's (NCLAT) orders dated April 22, 2024, and February 5, 2026.
The SRA contended that the GDA's failure to renew the development licence and approve revised building plans had stalled implementation of the resolution plan approved under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), delaying completion of the project and delivery of homes.
A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran directed the GDA and the Uttar Pradesh government to discuss the proposal already forwarded by the authority, take a final decision on renewal of the development licence and approval of the revised building plans, and place a reasoned decision before the court within two weeks.
The GDA Vice Chairman appeared before the Court pursuant to its order passed on July 29, while the Principal Secretary, Housing and Urban Development, Government of Uttar Pradesh, joined the proceedings virtually.
The appeal arises from NCLAT orders in which the appellate tribunal held that the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) had merely granted the Resolution Professional liberty to approach the GDA and had not issued any mandatory directions against the authority.
While directing the GDA to endeavour to decide any fresh application within three weeks, the NCLAT declined to issue further directions.
At the outset, the court asked Nand Kishore Kalal, vice chairman of the GDA, what steps the authority proposed to take.
"Faith of around 1,600 homebuyers is in your hands. What do you propose to do? We have been given to understand that you have forwarded some proposal, seeking some guidance from the State Government," the Court asked.
Questioning the State government's inaction, Justice Pardiwala noted that homebuyers had been waiting for their flats for 19 years.
"It's been now 19 years, one nine. The homebuyers are still waiting for their flats to be handed over to them. Are you in receipt of some proposal from the Ghaziabad Development Authority in this regard? Have you looked into it? Have you understood what the Ghaziabad Development Authority is trying to convey to you?" the Court asked Guru Prasad, Principal Secretary, Housing and Urban Development, Government of Uttar Pradesh.
Responding to the Court's queries, the Principal Secretary submitted that the GDA had sought guidance from the State government on three issues: whether the revised building plans submitted by the SRA could be approved; who would be responsible for developing common infrastructure if the plans were sanctioned; and whether Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd. (APIL) or the SRA would be responsible for constructing EWS and LIG housing.
The bench observed that the issues required an immediate decision by the state.
"Today the issue is whether GDA can lawfully continue to withhold renewal of the development licence and sanction of the revised building plan, and thereby stall the implementation of a resolution plan already approved under Section 31 of the IBC. We want you to immediately look into this issue. Reply appropriately to the Ghaziabad Development Authority. Are we clear?" the Court said.
Expressing its displeasure over the authorities' conduct, the bench remarked,
"It's your responsibility, today we are discharging. You are the authority. You are supposed to protect the interest of these homebuyers. It is your callous attitude that leads to such litigations. We are sorry to say this early in the morning but then sometimes we have to say something which is not light. We are judges and we are duty bound to bring something to the notice of the State, instrumentalities of the State. They may not like to hear. That's your problem. Now we are giving you one last opportunity."
Dictating its order, the Court recorded that the state government and the GDA should consider the proposal already forwarded by the authority and take a final decision on renewal of the development licence and sanction of the revised building plans. It directed them to place a reasoned decision before the court within two weeks, after which it would consider the remaining issues.
During the hearing, Senior Advocate Nikhil Goel, appearing for the SRA, submitted that his client had stepped into the shoes of the corporate debtor under the NCLT-approved resolution plan and was only seeking recognition of its rights over the 26-acre parcel and approval of the revised building plans. He argued that the denial of approvals had prevented completion of the project and delivery of homes.
Appearing for the homebuyers, Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy submitted that hundreds of families were already living in partially completed buildings without basic civic amenities. She said the prolonged dispute had left residents without proper roads, sewage facilities, and other essential infrastructure and urged the Court to ensure implementation of the approved resolution plan at the earliest.
Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd. (APIL), submitted that the development licence for the entire 99-acre township continued to vest in his client. He argued that APIL remained in possession of the remaining land and intended to develop it independently. Singh also said APIL was willing to compensate the homebuyers with accrued interest and even undertake redevelopment of the project if the concerned 26-acre parcel was handed back.
The court, however, reiterated that its concern was the plight of the homebuyers.
"Yesterday also we had a tough time in one another matter. We are only concerned with the homebuyers," it observed.
When informed that the GDA had already forwarded a proposal to the State government, Justice Pardiwala questioned why no final decision had been taken.
"If everything has been done at your end, what did you argue yesterday that we have forwarded some proposal which is pending with the State? What is that proposal?"
The court then directed the Principal Secretary and the GDA Vice Chairman to jointly resolve the issues.
"Mr. Guru Prasad, it's going to be your responsibility now. Mr. Kalal will get in touch with you. Have a meeting, make a decision, pass a reasoned order, place it before us.", the court ordered.