Demolition Of Private Property Must Be Based On Clear Statutory Grounds & Consideration Of All Factors : Supreme Court

Holding that a demolition order affecting property rights under Article 300-A of the Constitution must be founded on clear, cogent, and site-specific evidence of illegality, the Supreme Court on Thursday (January 29) set aside the Calcutta High Court's direction to demolish a fully constructed residential building in Santiniketan, after finding that no material had been placed on record to establish that the construction stood on “khoai” land.

“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.”, observed a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, adding that the public interest litigation cannot be filed on mere conjectures, and surmises, rather a cogent scientific evidence is necessitated to seek demolition of an illegal structure.

“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.”, the court observed.

A Public Interest Litigation was filed before the High Court, challenging the legality of a housing project constructed on a 0.39-acre plot in Mouza Ballavpur, near Visva-Bharati University, Santiniketan.

The High Court in 2013 had ordered demolition of the building, directed payment of ₹10 lakh as compensation for restoration of the area, imposed costs, and ordered initiation of proceedings against officials of the Sriniketan Santiniketan Development Authority (SSDA) and the local Gram Panchayat. The High Court had concluded that the construction was illegal as it stood on “khoai” land, an ecologically sensitive geological formation, and that permissions had been granted by incompetent authorities, leading to an appeal before the Supreme Court.

Allowing the appeals filed by Aarsuday Projects, the SSDA, and affected flat purchasers, the Supreme Court held that the very foundation of the demolition order was legally unsustainable.

The judgment authored by Justice Mehta rejected the High Court's finding that the construction stood on protected “khoai” land, instead it observed that no conclusive or scientific evidence had been produced to establish this crucial fact.

The report of the West Bengal Pollution Control Board merely stated that the adjoining area was colloquially known as “khoai” and did not certify that the subject plot itself was “khoai” land.

“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.”, the court observed.

Cause Title: M/S AARSUDAY PROJECTS & INFRASTRUCTURE (P) LTD VERSUS JOGEN CHOWDHURY & ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 90

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee, 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. 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. Sarthak Sharma, Adv.

For Respondent(s): Mr. Siddharth Bhatnagar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Nirnimesh Dube, Adv. Mr. Ankur S. Kulkarni, Adv. 1 Mr. Pratham Mehrotra, Adv. Ms. Pracheta Kar, Adv. Mr. Nadeem Afroz, Adv. Ms. Priya S. Bhalerao, Adv. Ms. Divyansha Gajallewar, 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. G.arudhra Rao, Adv. Mr. Abhijit Sengupta, AOR Mr. Paras Chauhan, Adv. Mr. Balmiki Prasad, Adv. Mr. Birendra Kumar, Adv. Mr. N.maylsamy, Adv. Mr. S.prasada Rao, Adv. Mr. Vishal Arun, AOR Mr. Jaideep Gupta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Partha Sil, AOR Mr. Chirag Joshi, Adv. Mr. Utkarsh Dwivedi, Adv. Mr. Srijit Datta, 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

For Intervenor(s) Mr. C.A. Sundaram, Sr. Adv. Mr. Udayaditya Banerjee, Adv. Mr. Samrat Sengupta, Adv. Mr. Soumya Dutta, AOR Mr. Siddhant Jaiswal, Adv. Mr. Siddhant Upmanyu, Adv. Mr. Abhijit Pandey, Adv.