LexStreak
Read free →
Supreme Court of India· 08 September 2026

Does partial or some access to an allotted plot exempt a developmental authority from its obligation to provide easy, effective and legitimate access?

NEW OKHLA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT v. M/S SUNSHINE TRADE TOWER PRIVATE
2026 INSC 975
Coram: Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha · Justice Alok Aradhe
🔖 Save this judgment🔔 Follow s.41(3) Uttar Pradesh Urban Plan…📬 Get today's judgments
View the original judgment PDFFree to read. To download it — or the LexStreak typeset copy with the headnote and Points of Law — create an account; downloads are part of the Pro plan.
Answer

Partial or some access to an allotted plot does not exempt a developmental authority from its obligation to provide easy, effective and legitimate access.

No. That a developer had some access to the allotted plot does not exempt the developmental authority from its obligation to provide easy, effective and legitimate access sufficient for construction; where adequate access is not in fact provided for reasons attributable to the authority, the benefit of a policy like the Zero Period Policy cannot be denied. (¶33, 35)

Headnote

Uttar Pradesh Industrial Area Development Act, 1976 — NOIDA Zero Period Policy — Interpretation of policy — Adequate access — Developer's liability — Interpretation of governmental policy — Purposive, not statutory — Held: The provisions of a governmental policy, such as NOIDA's Zero Period Policy, are not interpreted like the provisions of a statute; a court must read the clause for its purpose and object, from both a micro and macro perspective. (¶34) Zero Period Policy — Clause 5 — Adequate access standard — Held further: Partial or some access to an allotted plot does not exempt a developmental authority from its obligation to provide easy, effective and legitimate access; where adequate access is not in fact provided, the policy's benefit cannot be denied. (¶33, 35) Developmental authority's default — No liability on developer — Held further: A developer cannot be fastened with liability for a developmental authority's failure to provide promised access infrastructure; denial of policy relief in such circumstances is unreasonable and untenable in law. Appeals dismissed. (¶42, 44)

Headnote

You've used your free headnotes this month

The answer above and the Court's own paragraphs stay free. LexStreak's full headnote on this judgment needs an account — a free one opens it again.

Create my free account
In the Court's own words
Paragraph 33The purport of Clause 5 of the Zero Period Policy is to grant relief to developers in cases where the possession of the allotted land has already been given to a developer, pursuant to the execution of a lease deed, but due to certain circumstances, the Developer is unable to gain an access road to the allotted plot and, as a consequence, development/construction is not possible. With respect to its interpretation, NOIDA’s stance has been that Clause 5 ought to be construed strictly and literally — given that the Developer could gain some measure of access to the Subject Plot and undertake limited development, NOIDA submits that the benefit of Clause 5 cannot be extended.
Paragraph 35Therefore, 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. If adequate access was not provided for reasons attributable to NOIDA, then the benefit of the Zero Period Policy cannot be denied, least of all on the ground that some access was available. Availability of Adequate Access via the 45-metre Front Road to the Subject Plot
Acts & Sections
s.41(3) Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973s.12 Uttar Pradesh Industrial Area Development Act, 1976

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of NEW OKHLA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT v. M/S SUNSHINE TRADE TOWER PRIVATE — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Create my free account

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

Open the full judgment →

Also decided in this judgment
Are the provisions of a governmental policy interpreted like the provisions of a statute?Can a developer be fastened with liability for a developmental authority's failure to provide promised access infrastructure?
Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Supreme Court of India. Corrections