Legal Review and Analysis of Ms Aarsuday Projects & Infrastructure P Ltd vs Jogen Chowdhury & Ors 2026 INSC 93
Synopsis
The Supreme Court of India, in its judgment dated January 29, 2026, allowed a set of civil appeals and set aside the judgment of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court which had directed the demolition of a building constructed by the appellant-developer in the Santiniketan area. The High Court had held the construction illegal on the grounds that it was built on ecologically sensitive "khoai" land and without proper permissions. The Supreme Court found that the High Court's decision was based on insufficient evidence, erroneous factual assumptions, and a misapplication of the law. The Court emphasized the importance of reliable scientific evidence in determining the nature of land, the validity of permissions obtained in good faith, and the need for judicial restraint in public interest litigation involving disputed questions of fact.
1. Basic Information of the Judgment
Case Title: M/s Aarsuday Projects & Infrastructure (P) Ltd. vs Jogen Chowdhury & Ors.
Citation: 2026 INSC 93
Court: Supreme Court of India
Coram: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
Nature of Bench: Division Bench (not a Constitutional Bench)
Civil Appeal Nos.: 2920 of 2018, 2921 of 2018, and 2922-2923 of 2018
Appeal Under: Article 136 of the Constitution of India (Special Leave Petition)
2. Legal Framework
Governing Statutes and Regulations:
West Bengal Town & Country (Planning and Development) Act, 1979.
West Bengal Panchayat Act and related Rules (Gram Panchayat Administration Rules, 2004).
Environmental Impact Assessment Notification, 2006 (Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change).
Visva-Bharati Act, 1951.
Article 300A of the Constitution of India (Right to Property).Key Precedents Referenced:
Sushanta Tagore v. Union of India – Established the need to preserve the ecological and cultural heritage of Santiniketan, particularly "khoai" land.
Chairman, Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. (GRIDCO) v. Sukamani Das – On the limitations of public interest litigation in disputed factual matters.
Shubhas Jain v. Rajeshwari Shivam – On the burden of proof in PILs and the need for cogent evidence.
3. Relevant Facts of the Case
The appellant, M/s Aarsuday Projects & Infrastructure (P) Ltd., purchased a plot of land (0.39 acres) in Mouza Ballavpur, Birbhum, West Bengal, in 2009. The land was part of a larger tract (28.12 acres) designated as "residential" in the Land Use and Development Control Plan, 2002, prepared by the Sriniketan Santiniketan Development Authority (SSDA).
The appellant obtained necessary permissions: a no-objection certificate from the Gram Panchayat (2009), vetting of the building plan by the Zilla Parishad (2011), a no-objection certificate for land conversion from SSDA (2012), and final conversion approval from the District Land & Land Reforms Officer (2013). Construction was completed by July 2013.
Respondents 1–7 filed a public interest litigation before the Calcutta High Court, alleging that the construction was illegal as it was built on "khoai" land (a unique geological formation) and violated the mandate of Sushanta Tagore.
The High Court directed demolition of the building, imposed a compensation of ₹10 lakhs, and ordered action against erring officials.
The Supreme Court stayed the demolition and eventually heard the appeals.
4. Issues Before the Court
Whether the High Court was justified in holding that the appellant's construction was on "khoai" land based on the reports of the District Magistrate and the West Bengal Pollution Control Board.
Whether the permissions obtained by the appellant were legally valid, especially in light of the alleged procedural irregularities (e.g., approval by Gram Panchayat instead of Panchayat Samiti).
Whether the public interest litigation was bona fide, given that some petitioners owned properties in the same area and did not challenge other similar constructions.
Whether the direction for demolition was proportionate and legally sustainable.
5. Ratio Decidendi
The Supreme Court held:
The burden of proving that the land was "khoai" rested on the writ petitioners. The reports of the District Magistrate and the Pollution Control Board were inconclusive and lacked scientific basis. Neither report definitively established that the subject plot itself was "khoai" land.
The appellant had obtained all necessary permissions from competent authorities as per the prevailing practice. Any procedural irregularity (e.g., approval by Gram Panchayat) was curable and did not render the construction illegal, especially in the absence of fraud or mala fides.
The public interest litigation lacked bona fides, as some petitioners had properties in the same area and selectively targeted the appellant's construction. The Court emphasized that PILs cannot be used to resolve disputed questions of fact without reliable evidence.
The right to property under Article 300A of the Constitution cannot be infringed without clear statutory authority and due process. Demolition is a drastic remedy and must be based on substantive illegality, not mere procedural lapses.
6. Legal Principles Established or Clarified
Evidence in Environmental Cases: Claims regarding ecologically sensitive land must be supported by contemporaneous scientific evidence, not just conjectural or inferential reports.
Validity of Permissions: Permissions obtained in good faith from competent authorities, following prevalent practices, cannot be retrospectively invalidated on hyper-technical grounds.
Public Interest Litigation: PIL petitioners must disclose all material facts, including their own interests in the subject matter. Courts must exercise restraint in PILs involving complex factual disputes.
Proportionality in Remedial Action: Demolition should be ordered only in cases of egregious and substantive illegality, not for curable procedural defects.
7. Analysis and Examination by the Supreme Court
The Court conducted a detailed analysis of the following aspects:
a. Nature of the Land:
The Court scrutinized the reports of the District Magistrate and the Pollution Control Board. It found that these reports did not conclusively prove that the subject plot was "khoai" land. The Pollution Control Board's report only noted that the adjacent area had "khoai" formations.
The Court emphasized that "khoai" is not a recognized category in revenue records and that the burden of proof lay with the petitioners, who failed to discharge it.
b. Validity of Permissions:
The Court examined the chronological sequence of permissions and found that the appellant had followed due process. The Gram Panchayat's approval, though later questioned, was consistent with prevailing practices. The vetting by the Zilla Parishad added legitimacy.
The Court held that the conversion of land from "danga" (barren) to "bastu" (residential) was valid and subsequent approval by the revenue authority cured any initial irregularity.
c. Bona Fides of the PIL:
The Court noted that several petitioners owned houses in the same tract of land and had not challenged other constructions. This selective targeting raised doubts about the genuineness of the PIL.
The Court reiterated that PIL is a tool for justice, not for settling private disputes or targeting specific individuals.
d. Proportionality of Demolition:
The Court held that demolition is an extreme step and must be proportionate to the illegality. In this case, even if there were minor procedural lapses, they did not warrant demolition, especially when the construction was on land designated for residential use and caused no proven environmental harm.
8. Critical Analysis and Final Outcome
Critical Analysis:
The judgment underscores the importance of evidence-based decision-making in environmental and property disputes. It cautions against judicial overreach in PILs and highlights the need for clarity in regulatory frameworks.
The Court balanced ecological concerns with property rights, recognizing that sustainable development requires both conservation and lawful development.
The imposition of costs on the petitioners signals the Court's disapproval of frivolous or motivated litigation.
Final Outcome:
Civil Appeal No. 2920 of 2018 (filed by Aarsuday Projects) was allowed. The High Court's judgment was set aside, and the demolition order was quashed.
Civil Appeal No. 2921 of 2018 (filed by SSDA) was allowed, and adverse remarks against SSDA and its officials were expunged.
Civil Appeal Nos. 2922-2923 of 2018 (filed by flat purchasers) were disposed of in terms of the judgment in Appeal No. 2920.
The Court imposed costs of ₹1,00,000 on the writ petitioners (Respondents 1–7), payable to the West Bengal Legal Services Authority.
9. (MCQs)
1. Which constitutional provision protects the right to property, as emphasized in the Aarsuday Projects judgment?
a) Article 21
b) Article 300A
c) Article 19(1)(g)
d) Article 14
2. What was the primary reason the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's demolition order?
a) The construction was exempted under the Visva-Bharati Act.
b) The evidence did not conclusively prove that the land was "khoai."
c) The appellant had political influence.
d) The High Court lacked jurisdiction.
3. According to the Supreme Court, what is the key consideration when entertaining a public interest litigation involving disputed questions of fact?
a) The popularity of the cause.
b) The status of the petitioners.
c) The availability of clear, cogent, and reliable evidence.
d) The economic impact of the project.
4. Which of the following statements is true regarding the permissions obtained by Aarsuday Projects?
a) They were obtained fraudulently.
b) They were granted by the Panchayat Samiti, the competent authority.
c) They were obtained in good faith and in accordance with prevailing practices.
d) They were invalid because the land was classified as forest land.