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.

The court considered several facts as crucial in its analysis:

1. 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 (!) (!) .

2. 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 (!) (!) .

3. 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 (!) (!) .

4. 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 (!) (!) .

5. 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 (!) (!) .

6. 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 (!) (!) .

7. 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 (!) (!) .

8. 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.