Demolition Is an Extreme Measure, Reserved for Blatant Illegalities, Says Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has on January 29, 2026 said, any interference with privately owned property, including by way of demolition or deprivation of its beneficial use, must rest on a clear statutory foundation and be preceded by due consideration of all relevant factual and legal circumstances.  

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta said, public interest litigation cannot be permitted to become a vehicle for selective or targeted challenges, nor can it be invoked to resolve contested factual issues which are not capable of determination on affidavits alone.

The court here set aside the Calcutta High Court’s order directing demolition of a multi‑storey building constructed by Aarsuday Projects near Visva‑Bharati University, holding that there was no clear, scientific or contemporaneous material to show the plot itself was “khoai” land and that the developer had acted on approvals granted by the competent authorities.

"In the absence of any tangible evidence of fraud, misrepresentation, or deliberate circumvention of statutory requirements, a procedural lapse, even if assumed to exist, for arguments sake, could not render the construction per se illegal, nor could it justify the issuance of a direction for demolition, which is an extremely draconian consequence reserved for cases of blatant and substantive illegalities and violation,'' the bench said.  

The court found that the disputed land in question was referred to by the name of "khoai" (protected) by the High Court but no category by the name existed under the revenue laws of West Bengal.

The description of "khoai" appears to have been borrowed from the writings of Nobel Laureate Rabindranath Tagore, who referred to a peculiar geological formation found in and around the Birbhum region, created by natural decay and erosion, by wind and water, of small hills comprising red laterite soil rich in iron, resulting in the formation of natural gullies and canyon-like terrain, it noted.

It was contended that Gram Panchayat was not the competent authority to accord approval to the building plan and that such authority vested exclusively in the Panchayat Samiti.

The court, however, held, the approval by the Ruppur Gram Panchayat to the building plan on November 5, 2011 cannot be faulted and outrightly rejected.

"Even if it is assumed, arguendo, that there was any infirmity in the timing or manner of conversion of the subject plot from 'danga' (barren land) to 'bastu' (residential use), such infirmity could not have the effect of invalidating the entire construction raised by Aarsuday Projects," the bench said.

The court said that such an infirmity would warrant regulatory scrutiny or corrective measures in accordance with law but would not, however, justify the extreme consequence of demolition of a completed structure, particularly when the land was earmarked for "residential use" as per the Land Use and Development Control Plan, 2002 and the conversion was subsequently approved by the competent authority and no statutory provision mandated demolition as an automatic or inevitable consequence of such a defect.

The bench pointed out while writ jurisdiction serves an important constitutional purpose, the burden squarely lies on the writ petitioners to place clear, cogent, and reliable material on record in support of the allegations made. 

"Courts exercising writ jurisdiction must remain circumspect while entertaining petitions that hinge upon disputed questions of fact, particularly where such disputes require detailed examination of evidence or adjudication of rival factual claims,'' the bench said.

In case, the bench said, the classification of land as "danga" or "bastu" is essentially a revenue classification, and in the absence of a specific statutory prohibition, the mere fact that conversion was granted subsequent to the approval of the building plan could not, by itself, render the construction raised by Aarsuday Projects, illegal.

The court said from the material on record it was evident that Aarsuday Projects undertook and completed the construction after securing the requisite permissions and sanctions from the competent authorities and exercising jurisdiction at the relevant point in time.

"In these circumstances, no mala fides or deliberate mischief or wrongdoing can be attributed to the actions of Aarsuday Projects in undertaking and completing the disputed construction," it said.

The court pointed out, the High Court's judgement was also conspicuously silent on the crucial aspect that plots adjoining the subject plot had already been utilised for construction of residential buildings much prior to the disputed construction.

Case Title: M/s Aarsuday Projects & Infrastructure Projects (P) Ltd Vs Jogen Chowdhury & Ors