NOIDA Cannot Deny Zero Period Relief When Promised Access Road Is Unavailable Due to Its Failure: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has upheld the Allahabad High Court’s decision granting the benefit of New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA’s) ‘Zero Period Policy’ to a commercial developer whose project was affected by the non-availability of a promised 45-metre-wide access road.

A Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe held that merely having some physical access to a plot cannot defeat the policy where the development authority failed to provide the easy, effective and legitimate access contemplated under the sanctioned plan.

Background of the Case

NOIDA had allotted Plot No. 5-A in Sector 94, Noida, to M/s Sunshine Trade Tower Private Limited under a lease deed executed on January 11, 2012. The sanctioned site plan showed a 45-metre-wide front road and a 24-metre-wide side road.

The developer said construction could not progress properly because the 45-metre road was blocked by encroachment, while the 24-metre road remained sandy, unpaved and non-motorable. Construction was also halted for a period following an order of the National Green Tribunal concerning projects near the Okhla Bird Sanctuary.

In 2016, NOIDA introduced its Zero Period Policy, under which developers could receive relief from instalments and penal interest where construction was prevented by circumstances such as court orders, encroachment or the absence of an access road.

NOIDA eventually granted relief for the period affected by the NGT restraint order but rejected the developer’s claim based on the lack of proper access.

Several official reports subsequently recorded problems with the 45-metre road. A Tehsildar’s report found that the land earmarked for the road was recorded as inhabited land, had not been acquired and was occupied. UPRERA later recorded that although the 24-metre road was completed in February 2020, the 45-metre road had still not been constructed.

The State Government, while considering the developer’s revision, also found that the missing 45-metre road affected the project’s planned layout and commercial viability. It granted partial relief, including waiver of penal interest and a one-year extension for the COVID-19 period.

The Allahabad High Court later granted the developer the Zero Period benefit and directed NOIDA to issue a fresh calculation and approve the revised plan in accordance with law.

Supreme Court’s Observation

The Supreme Court rejected NOIDA’s argument that the policy should apply only where there was absolutely no physical access to the plot.

The Court explained that the Zero Period Policy is not to be interpreted in the same manner as a statute. Its purpose and broader objective must also be considered.

"The argument that the Developer could have some access cannot be a ground to exempt NOIDA from its obligation to provide easy, efficient, and legitimate access to the Subject Plot."

The Court found that the official records consistently established that the 45-metre front road had not been made available. It noted that NOIDA, as the statutory development authority, had the means to remove the encroachments and provide the promised access but had not done so.

The Court further noted that the missing 45-metre frontage was not merely an issue of convenience. The original project had been planned around that road as the principal frontage.

With the 45-metre road unavailable, the project required changes to its orientation, entry and exit points, setbacks and other planning parameters. The Court held that the developer could not reasonably be expected to proceed under the original plan while also being held responsible for NOIDA’s failure to provide the promised road.

Decision

The Supreme Court concluded that the Allahabad High Court had committed no error in granting relief to the developer. It dismissed NOIDA’s appeals and upheld the High Court’s judgment and final order.

The Court also recorded the developer’s statement that the project would be completed within four years from approval of the revised site plan and that the outstanding amounts would be paid in eight instalments.

There was no order as to costs.

Case Details

Case Title: New Okhla Industrial Development Authority & Ors. v. M/s Sunshine Trade Tower Private Limited & Anr.

Case Number: Civil Appeal Nos. 10900-10902 of 2025

Judge: Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe

Decision Date: September 8, 2026