Demolition Is A Drastic Measure, Not Warranted By Conjectures Or Ecological Poetry: Supreme Court Quashes Calcutta HC Order To Raze Private Building

“There can be no presumption of illegality without law. Descriptive, literary or ecological notions of ‘khoai’ cannot override revenue records or statutory land use classifications.” In a landmark ruling delivered on January 29, 2026, the Supreme Court of India overturned the Calcutta High Court’s controversial order directing demolition of a completed residential building near Visva-Bharati University, Santiniketan. The Court held that demolition orders cannot be passed merely on the “impressionistic notion of ecological sensitivity” or poetic imagery of the land, especially in absence of “unimpeachable evidence or statutory backing.”

Justice Sandeep Mehta, delivering the judgment on behalf of the Bench comprising himself and Justice Vikram Nath, stated emphatically that, “There is no category of land known as ‘khoai’ under the revenue laws of West Bengal, and no presumption of illegality can be drawn from literary or ecological nomenclature alone.”

“No Equality in Illegality, But No Arbitrary Selectivity Either”: Court Slams Selective Targeting of Private Builder

The Supreme Court categorically held that “There can be no parity in illegality, but equally, there can be no selective invocation of public interest jurisdiction to target one structure, while others similarly situated are left untouched.” It was revealed that the writ petitioners who had approached the High Court seeking demolition of the residential complex constructed by Aarsuday Projects themselves owned residential houses in the same locality—some on adjacent plots within the same 28.12-acre tract.

The Court expressed serious concern about the suppression of this fact and noted, “Selective targeting of the construction undertaken by Aarsuday Projects, while overlooking the presence of residential structures owned by the petitioners themselves in the same tract of land, undermines the bona fides of the PIL and militates against the principle of fairness in judicial review.”

“Khoai Is A Descriptive Notion, Not A Statutory Prohibition”: Supreme Court Reiterates Land Use Must Be Governed By Law, Not Sentiment

Rejecting the High Court's reliance on ecological notions of “khoai”—a term popularised by Rabindranath Tagore to describe the undulating red laterite terrain found near Santiniketan—the Court drew a clear line between literary symbolism and enforceable legal standards.

“Khoai, though of cultural and ecological value, does not exist as a statutory land category under West Bengal revenue laws. Land use and building permissions must be adjudged in accordance with the statutory Land Use and Development Control Plan and not poetic imagery or literary expressions,” the Court observed.

The Court also held that the subject land was recorded as “danga” (barren) in revenue records and was designated as “residential” under the notified 2002 Land Use Plan. “Absent a formal notification, neither heritage sentiment nor poetic homage can convert developable private land into preserved forest,” the Bench declared.

“No Impeccable Evidence of Violation, No Demolition”: SC Declares Calcutta HC Acted On Assumptions, Not Law

The Supreme Court was critical of the Calcutta High Court's readiness to direct demolition without clear findings of illegality, noting that “Neither the report of the District Magistrate nor that of the West Bengal Pollution Control Board establishes that the subject plot is ‘khoai’ land or falls under any statutory no-construction zone.”

The Pollution Control Board's report, according to the Court, merely stated that “adjacent areas” to the site were colloquially known as khoai. In fact, the Court pointed out that “no scientific study, no contour mapping, and no expert verification was ever carried out to establish the nature of the land.”

“Demolition is not a symbolic remedy to express disapproval. It must rest on the bedrock of statutory violation and factual certainty. This standard was completely bypassed by the High Court,” the judgment clarified.

“Right To Property Under Article 300A Cannot Be Extinguished By Ecological Conjecture”: Apex Court Reaffirms Constitutional Protection

Reaffirming the constitutional guarantee under Article 300A, the Court emphasised, “No person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law. Mere assumptions, poetic imagery, or suspicion of environmental damage are not substitutes for lawful deprivation.”

The Bench held that Aarsuday Projects had obtained all necessary approvals—from the Gram Panchayat (vetted by the Zilla Parishad), the Sriniketan Santiniketan Development Authority (SSDA), and the District Land & Land Reforms Officer (DL&LRO). The land was later converted from danga to bastu in a statutorily valid manner.

“Even if the conversion happened after the construction began, it is, at best, a curable procedural irregularity. It cannot retrospectively render the construction illegal, particularly when the area was designated as residential in the Land Use Plan,” the Court said.

“High Court Ignored Its Own Precedent And Material Evidence”: Supreme Court Slams Judicial Overreach

The Court also highlighted that the High Court had previously accepted in another PIL (W.P. No. 34241(W) of 2013) that adjacent land was not khoai and that such constructions were legally permissible. An affidavit by Visva-Bharati University in that case acknowledged that the plot in question was outside university boundaries and not situated on khoai land.

The Court noted, “There is a conspicuous absence in the impugned judgment of any reference to this directly relevant and contemporaneous material. Judicial consistency demands that findings affecting the rights of private parties must be grounded in uniform application of the law.”

“SSDA Cannot Be Penalised For Lawful Conduct”: Adverse Remarks Against Officials Expunged

The Supreme Court also came down heavily on the High Court’s direction to initiate proceedings against officials of the SSDA, the DL&LRO, and the Gram Panchayat. It held that “No finding of mala fides, negligence or statutory violation was recorded against them. The High Court’s directions were punitive without legal basis.”

Further, the Court praised the SSDA for its corrective steps, including the engagement of IIT Kharagpur to revise the Development Plan and the declaration of eco-sensitive zones in accordance with Union Government guidelines.

“In light of these subsequent actions and the absence of culpable wrongdoing, the adverse remarks and proceedings against SSDA officers are wholly unwarranted and are hereby expunged,” the Court held.

“Litigation Was Not In Public Interest But Personal Dispute In Disguise”: SC Imposes ₹1 Lakh Costs On PIL Petitioners

Concluding that the writ petition filed before the Calcutta High Court was “lacking in bona fides”, the Supreme Court imposed costs of ₹1,00,000 on the petitioners, to be deposited with the West Bengal Legal Services Authority.

“The petitioners, while projecting a cause of public interest, failed to disclose that they themselves were beneficiaries of similar constructions in the same parcel of land. This amounted to suppression of material facts and abuse of process,” the Court stated.

Supreme Court Decision Restores Completed Construction, Protects Flat Buyers

Ultimately, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals filed by Aarsuday Projects, the SSDA, and the flat buyers. It set aside the Calcutta High Court’s judgment dated August 21–22, 2013 in its entirety, quashing the directions for demolition, compensation, and proceedings against government officers.

“The law must not permit such destruction of legitimate constructions merely to satisfy environmental populism. Sustainable development must coexist with legality and fair process,” the Court concluded.

Date of Decision: January 29, 2026