Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court Division Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, on Thursday (January 29, 2026), set aside the Calcutta High Court’s order directing demolition of a completed residential building near Visva-Bharati University in Santiniketan, which had been targeted through a public interest petition alleging illegal construction on “khoai” land. Holding that any demolition interfering with property rights protected under Article 300A must rest on a clear statutory basis and be supported by clear, cogent, site-specific material, the Court found that no contemporaneous or objective evidence established that the subject plot itself was “khoai” land. The Court also noted that PIL reliefs of this nature cannot proceed on conjecture without reliable material, and allowed the developer’s appeal, consequently setting aside the impugned directions.

The dispute arose from a public interest litigation filed before the Calcutta High Court challenging a residential-cum-commercial construction undertaken by a private developer on a plot of land situated near Visva-Bharati University, Santiniketan. The writ petition alleged that the construction was illegal on two principal grounds: first, that it was raised on environmentally sensitive land described as “khoai”; and second, that the requisite permissions had not been obtained from the competent statutory authorities.

Also Read: Handwriting Expert Opinion For Will Not Needed If Signatures Not Disputed: Supreme Court

The developer contended that the land was privately owned, recorded as danga in revenue records, earmarked for residential use under the applicable Land Use and Development Control Plan, and that all approvals, including land-use conversion and building plan vetting, were obtained from the concerned authorities. The planning authority supported this position, asserting that its role was confined to land-use planning and conversion and that it had acted within its statutory mandate.

The High Court accepted the PIL and ordered demolition of the construction, imposed compensation and costs on the developer, and directed initiation of proceedings against officials of statutory bodies. These directions were challenged before the Supreme Court by the developer, the planning authority, and the flat purchasers.

The Supreme Court examined the material forming the basis of the High Court’s conclusions and observed that “the subject plot on which the disputed construction was raised was privately owned land, lawfully acquired under a registered sale deed, and the said sale deed has never been questioned or disputed before any forum.”

On the West Bengal Pollution Control Board’s report the Court recorded that “a pertinent finding emerging from the survey material collected by WBPCB is that “khoai” formations were noticed on the land adjacent to the subject plot on which Aarsuday Projects has raised the disputed construction. This finding assumes significance, as it clearly negates the assumption that the subject plot itself was of “khoai” nature.

While analysing the reports relied upon by the High Court, the Court observed that “The District Magistrate's report is based merely on conjectures and surmises and was submitted without the concerned official even bothering to undertake a proper site inspection or getting a spot verification done through an expert. Hence, in the absence of reliable scientific material establishing the “khoai” character of the subject plot, the foundational premise on which the High Court proceeded to issue the directions (for demolition) cannot be said to be conclusively borne out from the record…In the absence of clear, specific, and contemporaneous scientific evidence establishing that the subject plot was of “khoai” nature, the invocation of public interest jurisdiction to assail the construction undertaken by Aarsuday Projects cannot be sustained, particularly where similarly situated constructions within the same tract of land were left unchallenged.”

On procedural objections regarding building permission, the Court recorded that “even if it is assumed that the Gram Panchayat was not the competent authority, such defect would, at best, constitute a procedural irregularity which was curable in nature.” The Court further observed that “in the absence of fraud, misrepresentation or deliberate violation of statutory provisions, demolition is an extreme and disproportionate consequence.”

Addressing the PIL, the Court stated that “public interest litigation cannot be permitted to be invoked on the basis of assumptions or disputed questions of fact unsupported by cogent material.” It also recorded that “the writ petitioners themselves had existing residential structures within the same tract of land, a material fact which was not disclosed while invoking writ jurisdiction.” The Court observed: “Any interference with privately owned property, including by way of demolition or deprivation of its beneficial use, must therefore rest on a clear statutory foundation and be preceded by due consideration of all relevant factual and legal circumstances, which exercise, appears not to have been undertaken in the present case.”

The Supreme Court directed that “the judgment and order dated 21st & 22nd August, 2013 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court at Calcutta in Writ Petition No. 8341(W) of 2012 does not stand to scrutiny and deserves to be set aside.”

“Civil Appeal No. 2920 of 2018, preferred by Aarsuday Projects, the developer of the subject plot, is allowed and the judgment and order dated 21st & 22nd August, 2013 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court is hereby set aside.”

“Civil Appeal No. 2921 of 2018, preferred by the Sriniketan Santiniketan Development Authority (SSDA) challenging the adverse observations made against it and its officers, as well as the consequential directions for initiation of proceedings, is allowed,” and clarified that “the adverse remarks and consequential directions issued against the SSDA and its officers in the impugned judgment shall, accordingly, stand expunged.”

Also Read: MPPSC Cannot Reject Doctors For PG Additional Registration Not Mentioned In Advertisement: MP High Court

“Civil Appeal Nos. 2922–2923 of 2018, preferred by the subsequent purchasers of flats constructed by Aarsuday Projects on the subject plot, are disposed of in terms of the judgment rendered in Civil Appeal No. 2920 of 2018.”

The Court imposed costs upon the writ petitioners:“costs quantified at Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) shall be paid by the writ petitioners, i.e., respondent Nos. 1–7, and the said amount shall be deposited with the West Bengal Legal Services Authority within a period of two months from today. Proof of such deposit shall be filed before the Registry of this Court within two weeks thereafter. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.”

Case Title: M/s Aarsuday Projects & Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. Jogen Chowdhury & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 93
Case Number: Civil Appeal Nos. 2920–2923 of 2018
Bench: Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta