Authority: Supreme Court of India, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction

Order Date: 08 September 2026

Case Overview

  • The appeals (Civil Appeals No. 10900‑10902 of 2025) challenge the Allahabad High Court’s judgment and order dated 19 July 2024 in Writ‑C Nos. 9348, 21276 of 2023 and 7223 of 2024.
  • The dispute stems from a scheme launched by the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) on 22 September 2011 for allotting commercial plots in Noida. M/s Sunshine Trade Tower Pvt. Ltd. was selected and a Lease Deed dated 11 January 2012 allotted Plot 5‑A, Sector 94 for a consideration of ₹1,33,86,63,730/‑; possession was handed over the same day.
  • The lease required the developer to construct a commercial complex. Access was to be via a 45‑metre Front Road (east) and a 24‑metre Side Road (north). The Front Road was encroached; the Side Road remained unpaved and non‑motorable.
  • On 17 September 2013 the National Green Tribunal (NGT) issued an interim order halting construction within 10 km of the Okhla Bird Sanctuary. The developer complied; construction stopped.
  • The NGT injunction was lifted on 19 August 2015 after a Government of India notification, but the Front Road remained encroached and the Side Road incomplete.
  • NOIDA introduced a ‘Zero Period Policy’ on 28 March 2016, providing relief where access to the allotted land is unavailable due to encroachment, court stays, or other impediments.
  • Sunshine Trade Tower made representations on 12 April 2016, 29 September 2016 and 15 October 2016 seeking modification of the payment schedule and Zero Period benefit on grounds of the NGT order and lack of access.
  • NOIDA granted Zero Period benefit for the period 14 August 2013‑28 October 2013 and exempted penal interest from 29 October 2013‑19 August 2015, but sought a Tehsildar report on road access.
  • The Tehsildar’s report (14 February 2019) confirmed that the 45‑metre Front Road lay on ‘Abadi’ land (Khasra 684, Gram Chhalera Banger) encroached by villagers and not acquired; thus access was blocked.
  • NOIDA’s committee (09 January 2020) rejected the Zero Period claim for lack of access; the CEO’s order (14 February 2020) held the developer had sufficient access via the 24‑metre road and that any delay was due to the developer’s own excavation.
  • The developer filed revision applications under Sections 41(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act 1973 and 12 of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Area Development Act 1976, and also approached UPRERA.
  • UPRERA (22 October 2020) rejected the complaint as non‑maintainable but recorded that the 24‑metre road was completed in 2020 while the 45‑metre road remained unconstructed and inhabited.
  • The State Government, in its first revisional order (24 December 2020), directed NOIDA to reconsider the Zero Period benefit after fresh verification.
  • An inspection report (04 March 2021) confirmed the 24‑metre road was available (completed 18 February 2020) and the 45‑metre road existed only up to the northeast corner (completed 6 August 2014) but remained unconstructed beyond due to habitation and acquisition issues; the report recommended denying Zero Period benefit.
  • NOIDA’s Special Officer (Commercial) again rejected the benefit (2021) and the developer filed a second revision.
  • NOIDA cancelled the lease deed on 14 June 2022 for alleged non‑payment; the High Court stayed the cancellation on 21 June 2022.
  • The State Government’s second revisional order (14 September 2022) partially allowed the developer’s application, finding the 45‑metre road encroached, granting waiver of penal interest and a one‑year Covid‑19 extension, and directing NOIDA to issue a revised requisition within a month and to quash the cancellation order.
  • The Deputy Collector’s report (20 February 2023) reiterated that the 45‑metre road lay in inhabited land (Khasra 684) and could not be acquired without landowners’ consent.
  • The developer applied (03 March 2023) to modify the site plan to treat the 24‑metre road as the frontage; NOIDA raised technical objections, which were cured by 17 May 2023.
  • The developer obtained an interim High Court order (10 April 2023) directing NOIDA to sanction the revised plan without time‑extension charges; NOIDA rejected the revised plan on 1 June 2023, leading to further writ petitions.
  • NOIDA issued a demand notice (23 February 2024) for a balance of ₹100.39 crores; the developer challenged it in another writ petition.
  • The three writ petitions were finally disposed of by the Allahabad High Court (impugned judgment), which held:
  • The 45‑metre Front Road was encroached and unavailable, and the 24‑metre Side Road was only completed in February 2020.
  • The developer had a legitimate expectation of two access roads; NOIDA failed to provide the 45‑metre road, hindering project viability.
  • The High Court therefore granted the developer Zero Period benefit under the policy and directed NOIDA to recalculate dues, raise demand within two weeks, and approve the revised site plan within four weeks, with payment to be made in eight instalments within eight weeks of demand.
  • The Supreme Court, after hearing counsel for both sides, dismissed the civil appeals and upheld the High Court’s order.
  • The judgment also recorded the developer’s undertaking to complete the project within four years of plan approval and to pay the amounts due in eight instalments.

Final Outcome

  • The Supreme Court affirmed the Allahabad High Court’s grant of Zero Period Policy benefit to Sunshine Trade Tower Private Limited, quashed NOIDA’s cancellation of the lease deed, and ordered NOIDA to issue a fresh demand, raise it within two weeks, and approve the revised site plan within four weeks. The developer must pay the balance amount in eight instalments within eight weeks of the demand and complete the project within four years of plan approval.

Topics: Legal Dispute, Real Estate Development, Zero Period Policy