In a significant judgment reinforcing the protection of property rights in India, the Supreme Court has ruled that the state or courts cannot order the demolition of private property based on mere "conjectures or surmises." The Court emphasized that any interference with property rights—now protected under Article 300-A of the Constitution—must be backed by clear statutory authority and "cogent, site-specific scientific evidence."

The ruling came as a major relief to a real estate developer and several flat owners in Santiniketan, West Bengal. A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta set aside a 2013 Calcutta High Court order that had directed the demolition of a fully constructed residential building.

The controversy centered on a 0.39-acre plot in Mouza Ballavpur, located near the prestigious Visva-Bharati University in Santiniketan. A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) had been filed in the High Court alleging that the housing project by Aarsuday Projects was illegal because it was built on "khoai" land.

"Khoai" refers to a unique, ecologically sensitive geological formation characterized by laterite soil canyons formed by water erosion. Environmentalists and local petitioners argued that building on such land would destroy the natural heritage and ecological balance of the area.

The Calcutta High Court had originally ruled in favor of the petitioners, concluding that the construction was illegal. It ordered the building to be razed, imposed a compensation of ₹10 lakh for ecological restoration, and initiated proceedings against local officials who granted the building permissions.

Upon reviewing the appeals filed by the developer, the Sriniketan Santiniketan Development Authority (SSDA), and the flat purchasers, the Supreme Court found the High Court's foundation to be "legally unsustainable."

The apex court noted that while the protection of "khoai" land is a valid environmental concern, there was no actual scientific proof that the specific plot in question was "khoai."

Justice Sandeep Mehta, authoring the judgment, observed:

"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."

The Court pointed out a critical irony: a report by the West Bengal Pollution Control Board (WBPCB) actually showed that while adjacent lands had "khoai" formations, the subject plot did not. This, the Court held, proved that the plot was likely firm land suitable for construction rather than the protected geological formation.

A pivotal aspect of the judgment is the Court’s focus on Article 300-A, which states that no person shall be deprived of their property save by authority of law. While property is no longer a "fundamental right" (having been moved from that status in 1978), the Supreme Court reiterated that it remains a potent constitutional right.

The Bench held: "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."

The Court made it clear that "public interest" is not a blank check for the judiciary to bypass due process. Before ordering a demolition—which is an extreme and irreversible step—the court must ensure that the illegality is proved beyond doubt through expert verification.

The Supreme Court also scrutinized the conduct of the original petitioners. It was revealed that some of the people who filed the PIL against the developer actually owned residential structures in the same vicinity and on the same tract of land.

The Court expressed its displeasure at this "selective" environmental concern. It noted that the PIL lacked bona fides (good faith) because the petitioners failed to disclose that they themselves lived in similar constructions which remained unchallenged.

"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... cannot be sustained, particularly where similarly situated constructions within the same tract of land were left unchallenged," the Bench remarked.

The Supreme Court passed the following orders:

Quashed the Demolition: The order to demolish the residential building was set aside, protecting the homes of the flat purchasers.
Set Aside Penalties: The ₹10 lakh compensation and the costs imposed by the High Court were cancelled.
Exonerated Officials: The directions to initiate proceedings against the officials of the SSDA and the Gram Panchayat were quashed.
Imposed Costs on Petitioners: Highlighting the misuse of the PIL process, the Court ordered the original writ petitioners to pay ₹1,00,000 (One Lakh) to the West Bengal Legal Services Authority for failing to disclose material facts and filing a petition based on guesses rather than evidence.

This judgment serves as a stern reminder to administrative authorities and High Courts across India. It establishes that while environmental protection is paramount, it cannot be used as an excuse to bypass the rule of law or to trample upon the constitutional rights of property owners.

For a demolition to be legal, the state must provide:

A clear statutory basis (a specific law that was broken).
Due process (hearings and inspections).
Site-specific evidence (scientific proof of the violation).

By insisting on "reliable scientific material" over "colloquial understanding," the Supreme Court has raised the bar for seeking the destruction of private property in the name of public interest.

Case Title: M/S Aarsuday Projects & Infrastructure (P) Ltd vs. Jogen Chowdhury & Ors.
Citation: 2026 INSC 93
Bench: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta