1. Appeal against demolition order for private construction on allegedly sensitive land—dispute over planning authority and land classification—adherence to previously established environmental guidelines questioned. (Para 2 , 3 , 14 , 15 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(SC) 100
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
VIKRAM NATH, SANDEEP MEHTA, JJ.
M/s Aarsuday Projects & Infrastructure (P) Ltd – Appellant
Versus
Jogen Chowdhury & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No(s). 2920 of 2018 With Civil Appeal No(s). 2921 of 2018 Civil Appeal No(s). 2922-2923 of 2018
Decided On : 29-01-2026
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Siddharth Bhatnagar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Nirnimesh Dube, Adv. Mr. Ankur S. Kulkarni, Adv. Mr. Pratham Mehrotra, Adv. Ms. Pracheta Kar, Adv. Mr. Nadeem Afroz, Adv. Ms. Priya S. Bhalerao, Adv. Ms. Divyansha Gajallewar, Adv. Mr. Debdeep Banerjee, Adv. M/s Lex Regis Law Offices, AOR Mr. Prasenjit Keswani, Sr. Adv. Mr. Amol Chitale, Adv. Ms. Shweta Singh Parihar, Adv. Mrs. Pragya Baghel, AOR Mr. Bikram Jeet Mukerjee, Adv. Mr. Hitesh Kumar Sharma, Adv. Mr. Dipal S. Gohasal, Adv. Mr. Akhileshwar Jha, Adv. Ms. Shreya Jha, Adv. Mr. Anupam Kumar, Adv. Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. G. Arudhra Rao, Adv. Mr. Abhijit Sengupta, AOR Mr. Paras Chauhan, Adv. Mr. Balmiki Prasad, Adv. Mr. Birendra Kumar, Adv. Mr. Navneet Singh, Adv. Mr. Vishal Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Vishal Arun, AOR Mr. Siddharth Bhatnagar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Nirnimesh Dube, Adv. Mr. Ankur S. Kulkarni, Adv. Mr. Pratham Mehrotra, Adv. Ms. Pracheta Kar, Adv. Mr. Nadeem Afroz, Adv. Ms. Priya S. Bhalerao, Adv. Ms. Divyansha Gajallewar, Adv. Mr. Debdeep Banerjee, Adv. M/s Lex Regis Law Offices, AOR Mr. Nikilesh Ramachandran, AOR M/S. Plr Chambers And Co., AOR Mr. Sanjay Kumar Visen, AOR Mr. Parth Sarathi, Adv. Mr. Prashant Sharma, Adv. Mr. Gyanendra Vikram Singh, Adv. Ms. Soumya Gulati, Adv. Mr. Himanshu Saroj, Adv. Mr. Jaideep Gupta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Partha Sil, AOR Mr. Chirag Joshi, Adv. Mr. Utkarsh Dwivedi, Adv. Mr. Srijit Datta, Adv. Ms. Sayani Bhattacharya, Adv. Ms. Racheeta Chawla, Adv. Mr. Riddhi Bose, Adv. Ms. Rishi Aggarwal, Adv. Ms. Sampriti Baksi, Adv. Mr. Kunal Mimani, AOR Ms. Shraddha Chirania, Adv. Ms. Astha Sharma, AOR Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee, AOR Mr. Rana Mukherjee, Sr. Adv. Mr. Manoj, Adv. Mr. Paritosh Sinha, Adv. Mr. Amitava Mitra, Adv. Mr. Naman Agarwal, Adv. Ms. Aparna Sinha, AOR Mr. Muddam Thirupathi Reddy, Adv.
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Siddharth Bhatnagar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Nirnimesh Dube, Adv. Mr. Ankur S. Kulkarni, Adv. Mr. Pratham Mehrotra, Adv. Ms. Pracheta Kar, Adv. Mr. Nadeem Afroz, Adv. Ms. Priya S. Bhalerao, Adv. Ms. Divyansha Gajallewar, Adv. Mr. Debdeep Banerjee, Adv. M/s Lex Regis Law Offices, AOR Mr. Prasenjit Keswani, Sr. Adv. Mr. Amol Chitale, Adv. Ms. Shweta Singh Parihar, Adv. Mrs. Pragya Baghel, AOR Mr. Bikram Jeet Mukerjee, Adv. Mr. Hitesh Kumar Sharma, Adv. Mr. Dipal S. Gohasal, Adv. Mr. Akhileshwar Jha, Adv. Ms. Shreya Jha, Adv. Mr. Anupam Kumar, Adv. Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. G. Arudhra Rao, Adv. Mr. Abhijit Sengupta, AOR Mr. Paras Chauhan, Adv. Mr. Balmiki Prasad, Adv. Mr. Birendra Kumar, Adv. Mr. Navneet Singh, Adv. Mr. Vishal Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Vishal Arun, AOR Mr. Siddharth Bhatnagar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Nirnimesh Dube, Adv. Mr. Ankur S. Kulkarni, Adv. Mr. Pratham Mehrotra, Adv. Ms. Pracheta Kar, Adv. Mr. Nadeem Afroz, Adv. Ms. Priya S. Bhalerao, Adv. Ms. Divyansha Gajallewar, Adv. Mr. Debdeep Banerjee, Adv. M/s Lex Regis Law Offices, AOR Mr. Nikilesh Ramachandran, AOR M/S. Plr Chambers And Co., AOR Mr. Sanjay Kumar Visen, AOR Mr. Parth Sarathi, Adv. Mr. Prashant Sharma, Adv. Mr. Gyanendra Vikram Singh, Adv. Ms. Soumya Gulati, Adv. Mr. Himanshu Saroj, Adv. Mr. Jaideep Gupta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Partha Sil, AOR Mr. Chirag Joshi, Adv. Mr. Utkarsh Dwivedi, Adv. Mr. Srijit Datta, Adv. Ms. Sayani Bhattacharya, Adv. Ms. Racheeta Chawla, Adv. Mr. Riddhi Bose, Adv. Ms. Rishi Aggarwal, Adv. Ms. Sampriti Baksi, Adv. Mr. Kunal Mimani, AOR Ms. Shraddha Chirania, Adv. Ms. Astha Sharma, AOR Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee, AOR Mr. Rana Mukherjee, Sr. Adv. Mr. Manoj, Adv. Mr. Paritosh Sinha, Adv. Mr. Amitava Mitra, Adv. Mr. Naman Agarwal, Adv. Ms. Aparna Sinha, AOR Mr. Muddam Thirupathi Reddy, Adv.
Important Points
The Supreme Court ruled that unauthorized constructions cannot be demolished without credible evidence of legal violations, emphasizing the importance of prior permissions from competent authorities when converting land use and the need for environmental assessments.
Subject
Environmental Law - Public Interest Litigation
Act Referred
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: Art.136, Art.300(a)
PANCHAYAT ACT: S.23, S.94, S.114
WEST BENGAL PANCHAYAT GRAM PANCHAYAT ADMINISTRATION RULES: R.28, R.17, R.27
PANCHAYAT ACT: S.23, S.94, S.114
WEST BENGAL PANCHAYAT GRAM PANCHAYAT ADMINISTRATION RULES: R.28, R.17, R.27
Headnote
(A) Environmental Law - Public Interest Litigation - Violation of Previous Judgement - The High Court ordered demolition of unauthorized construction on land purportedly classified as 'khoai', holding that the competent authority, the Panchayat Samiti, did not grant permission - The Supreme Court reversed this order, determining the land was privately owned and prior residential construction existed nearby, calling the High Court's reliance on its findings flawed. (Paras 1, 3, 56)
(B) Competence to Grant Permits - The court noted the Gram Panchayat's lack of authority to approve the construction on land classified under a statutory plan prior to conversion - The construction was found to have been constructed under questionable legal and regulatory procedures without due environmental consideration. (Paras 21, 25, 40)
(B) Competence to Grant Permits - The court noted the Gram Panchayat's lack of authority to approve the construction on land classified under a statutory plan prior to conversion - The construction was found to have been constructed under questionable legal and regulatory procedures without due environmental consideration. (Paras 21, 25, 40)
Judgement Key Points
The court considered several facts as crucial in its analysis:
-
The ownership status of the land: It was established that the entire parcel of land, including the subject plot, was privately owned and lawfully acquired through a registered sale deed, which had not been questioned or disputed before any forum (!) (!) .
-
The land classification in official records: The land was recorded as "danga" (barren land) in revenue records, and there was no contemporaneous evidence indicating that the land was of a "khoai" type or of a protected or special category (!) (!) .
-
The approvals and permissions obtained: The approvals from various authorities, including the land use plan, the "No Objection Certificate" from the local Panchayat, and the land conversion orders, were considered valid and properly obtained, especially since they were vetted by higher authorities like the Zilla Parishad and the revenue department (!) (!) .
-
The timing and legality of construction activities: Construction was completed before the land was officially converted from "danga" to "bastu," which indicated that the construction was undertaken in a manner consistent with the approvals received, and any procedural irregularities were deemed curable rather than fatal (!) (!) .
-
The environmental and land classification reports: Reports from the District Magistrate and the Pollution Control Board did not conclusively establish that the land was of a "khoai" nature or that the construction was on protected land. They primarily noted the adjacent area's features and did not definitively classify the subject plot as "khoai" land (!) (!) .
-
The surrounding constructions: There was substantial existing residential development on adjoining plots within the same larger tract of land, which challenged the assertion that the subject plot was uniquely "khoai" and supported the claim that the construction was not on environmentally protected land (!) (!) .
-
The absence of credible, site-specific scientific evidence: The reports relied upon lacked detailed, contemporaneous, and site-specific scientific or technical assessments to conclusively prove that the land was of a "khoai" nature, making the basis for declaring the land protected or the construction illegal questionable (!) (!) .
-
The bona fides of the property owner and the construction process: The fact that approvals were obtained from the competent authorities, that the construction was carried out in a bona fide manner, and that the approvals were subsequently confirmed by higher authorities were considered significant facts (!) (!) .
These facts collectively influenced the court's conclusion that the construction was lawful, the land was not definitively "khoai," and that the earlier judgments and actions based on assumptions lacked a sufficient factual foundation.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- administrative law
- practice and procedure
-
property law
-
land rights
- constitutional protection of property (Para 41)
-
land rights
Table of Contents
2. Appellants contend construction was authorized and lawfully approved; respondents argue the structure violates environmental heritage mandates—specifically concerning protected geological formations—and lacks valid competent authority sanction. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 )
3. Court finds no scientific evidence confirming the site as protected, notes surrounding existing developments, discrepancies in factual reports, and failures to disclose material facts by petitioners. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 )
4. Public interest litigation cannot be entertained on contested questions of fact without clear documentary evidence; regulatory procedural irregularities do not automatically justify the draconian remedy of demolition. (Para 34 , 36 , 52 , 54 , 55 )
5. Impugned judgment and demolition orders set aside; adverse remarks against authorities expunged; costs imposed on writ petitioners for lack of bona fides and non-disclosure. (Para 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 )
6. Can private construction be ordered for demolition on the basis of alleged ecological damage without expert scientific evidence?
No. The court held that allegations of ecological destruction on private land require clear, contemporaneous, and reliable scientific material. Speculations and generalized assumptions do not suffice, particularly when official reports and revenue records do not classify the land within a restricted category. (Para 42 , 43 , 45 , 46 , 47 )
7. Does a procedural irregularity in obtaining building plan approval automatically render a finished construction illegal and liable for demolition?
No. Procedural irregularities, such as obtaining approval from a local body rather than a planning authority, are curable and do not justify the extreme remedy of demolition, especially where the structure was built bona fide and the plan was vetted by other competent bodies. (Para 34 , 36 , 54 )
8. What is the burden of proof upon petitioners filing public interest litigation regarding land usage?
Petitioners bear the burden to place clear and credible evidence to substantiate their claims. They must also act with bona fides; failure to disclose existing personal structures in the immediate vicinity is a ground to decline relief and impose costs. (Para 52 , 55 , 58 )
JUDGMENT
Mehta, J.
| Table of Contents | |
| I. | SUBJECT MATTER AND SCOPE OF THE PRESENT APPEALS |
| II. | BACKGROUND AND EVOLUTION OF THE CONTROVERSY: |
| III. | FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE PRESENT CASE: |
| IV. | SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF AARSUDAY PROJECTS: |
| V. | SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT NOS. 1- 7 (WRIT PETITIONERS BEFORE THE HIGH COURT): - |
| VI. | SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE SSDA: |
| VII. | SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF VISVA-BHARATI UNIVERSITY: |
| VIII. | ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION: |
| A. | ADMITTED FACTS EMERGING FROM THE RECORD |
| B. | FINDINGS RECORDED BY THE HIGH COURT |
| C. | REGULATORY APPROVALS, PERMISSIONS, AND FACTUAL CHRONOLOGY RELATING TO THE DISPUTED CONSTRUCTION |
| D. | ASSESSMENT OF THE HIGH COURT’S APPROACH ON THE NATURE OF THE LAND AND REGULATORY PERMISSIONS |
| E. | BONA FIDES OF THE WRIT PETITIONERS (RESPONDENT NOS. 1- 7) AND BURDEN OF PROOF IN PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION |
| IX. | CONCLUSION |
1. Heard.
I. SUBJECT MATTER AND SCOPE OF THE PRESENT APPEALS
2. The instant appeals with special leave are directed against the judgment and order dated 21st & 22nd August, 2013 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court at Calcutta1 [Hereinafter, being referred to as the “High Court”] in Writ Petition No. 8341(W) of 2012, whereby the said writ petition in the nature of public interest litigation preferred by respondent Nos. 1-72 [Before the High Court, there were 8 writ petitioners, and all were made party-respondents in Civil Appeal No. 2920 of 2018. However, the name of Shri Sushanta Tagore was deleted from the array of parties vide this Court’s order dated 27th July, 2015 owing to his death.] came to be accepted and the High Court directed the demolition of the building constructed by the appellant-M/s. Aarsuday Projects & Infrastructure (P) Ltd.3 [Hereinafter, being referred to as the “Aarsuday Projects”.] on the subject plot4 [Plot No. 3644/3782 admeasuring 0.39 acres in Mouza Ballavpur, J.L. No. 63, District Birbhum] and also directed Aarsuday Projects to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/-, which was to be used for the purpose of restoration and preservation of the area in question. The High Court also saddled Aarsuday Projects with costs of Rs.25,000/- payable to the writ petitioners therein.
3. Simultaneously, the High Court also directed the initiation of appropriate proceedings against the officers of Sriniketan Santiniketan Development Authority5 [Hereinafter, being referred to as the “SSDA”] who had issued the “No Objection Certificate” for conversion of land from “danga” to “bastu” and District Land & Land Reforms Officer, Birbhum (DL&LRO, Birbhum), as well as against the concerned officers of the Ruppur Gram Panchayat for alleged violation of the mandate of judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Sushanta Tagore and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. 6 [(2005) 3 SCC 16]. For the sake of ready reference, the operative portion of the impugned judgment is reproduced hereinbelow: -
“In the instant case, the land in question is of immense public importance. Considering the environmental ambience and the international heritage, importance of Visva Bharati and Santiniketan, we find that the construction made for private gain in the land which has been converted to “khoai” a rare gift of nature, and/or in areas the inextricably connected to “khoai”, is wholly impermissible and violative of principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision of Susantha Tagore (supra). Private rights/interests have to give way to larger public interest.
(…..)
It is apparent that there were various illegal encroachments, which have been made in the area of Santiniketan and Visva Bharati, though there are resolutions that such structures have to be demolished in accordance with law, but no steps have been taken by the respondents.
Coming to yet another aspect, we find that the District Magistrate has ordered as the lodging of first
