Case Summary: M/s Aarsuday Projects & Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. Jogen Chowdhury & Ors. (2026) | Arbitrary Demolition of Private Property Not Permissible
Supreme Court safeguards property rights, holding demolition valid only with legal authority, due process and fairness. Scroll down for details.
This landmark judgment delivered by the Supreme Court of India addresses a crucial conflict between environmental preservation and private construction rights in the culturally sensitive Santiniketan region of West Bengal. The Court examined whether the construction undertaken by M/s Aarsuday Projects & Infrastructure (P) Ltd. on a plot near Santiniketan was illegal on account of alleged encroachment upon ecologically sensitive “khoai” land and procedural violations in obtaining construction permissions.
The appeals arose from a Calcutta High Court decision ordering the demolition of a residential building constructed by the developer. The High Court had concluded that the construction violated environmental norms and the Supreme Court’s earlier ruling in Sushanta Tagore v. Union of India. The Supreme Court, in this decision, revisited the scope of regulatory compliance, land classification, administrative approvals, and proportionality of demolition as a remedy.
Title of the Case: M/s Aarsuday Projects & Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. Jogen Chowdhury & Ors.
Citation: 2026 INSC 93
Court: Supreme Court of India
Judges: Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta
Date of Judgment: 29 January 2026
Background of the Dispute
The controversy revolved around a residential building constructed by Aarsuday Projects on a 0.39-acre plot in Mouza Ballavpur, Birbhum district, near Santiniketan. The area is culturally and environmentally significant due to its association with Rabindranath Tagore and proximity to Visva-Bharati University.
The High Court had treated the land as part of the ecologically sensitive “khoai” formation, a naturally eroded laterite landscape unique to Birbhum, and held that construction there violated environmental preservation mandates. It ordered the demolition of the structure and imposed compensation.
Aarsuday Projects, the Sriniketan Santiniketan Development Authority (SSDA), and flat purchasers challenged this ruling before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court granted status quo pending appeal.
Chronological Development of Events
The Court carefully reconstructed the timeline:
- 2002: The Land Use and Development Control Plan designated the plot for residential use.
- 2009: Aarsuday purchased the land legally through a registered sale deed.
- The land was recorded as “danga” (barren land) in revenue records.
- The Gram Panchayat issued a No Objection Certificate, conditional on land conversion.
- SSDA later granted NOC for conversion from “danga” to “bastu” (residential use).
- Construction commenced in 2011 and was completed in 2013.
- A Public Interest Litigation was filed alleging illegality and ecological damage.
- The High Court ordered demolition.
- The Supreme Court granted status quo pending appeal.
Issues Before the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court framed key issues:
- Whether the subject land qualified as protected “khoai” land.
- Whether construction permissions were legally valid.
- Whether procedural irregularities justified demolition.
- Whether authorities acted in violation of the Sushanta Tagore precedent.
- Whether the High Court’s demolition order was proportionate.
Meaning and Legal Status of “Khoai” Land
A major issue was the classification of the land as “khoai.” The Court noted that:
- “Khoai” is not a legally recognised category in West Bengal revenue records.
- The description originates from literary and geological references.
- No formal notification declared the plot as protected ecological land.
- The land was recorded as “danga,” not “khoai.”
The Court emphasised that environmental protection must rest on legally verifiable classifications, not assumptions or literary descriptions.
Validity of Construction Permissions
The Supreme Court examined the approval process and found:
- The land was earmarked for residential use since 2002.
- Competent authorities vetted building plans.
- SSDA granted conversion permission.
- No evidence of fraud or misrepresentation existed.
- The Pollution Control Board stated no clearance was needed due to limited built-up area.
The Court ruled that approvals followed established procedures and could not be invalidated retrospectively.
High Court’s Reliance on Inspection Reports
The High Court had relied on reports from:
- District Magistrate
- West Bengal Pollution Control Board
The Supreme Court held:
- These reports lacked scientific analysis.
- No conclusive proof showed the land was “khoai.”
- Observations were speculative.
- No consistent standard was applied to neighbouring constructions.
Thus, the High Court’s findings were based on insufficient evidence.
Competence of Gram Panchayat vs Panchayat Samiti
The High Court held that only Panchayat Samiti could grant approval. The Supreme Court disagreed, observing:
- Historical practice allowed Gram Panchayat processing.
- Zilla Parishad vetting provided additional scrutiny.
- Even if procedural irregularity existed, it was curable.
- Demolition is an extreme remedy, not warranted for minor procedural lapses.
Applicability of the Sushanta Tagore Judgment
The Court clarified that:
- The earlier judgment emphasised sustainable development.
- It did not impose a blanket ban on construction.
- No parity of illegality exists, but prior approvals matter.
- Development must be regulated, not frozen.
Thus, the High Court misapplied precedent.
Doctrine of Proportionality
The Supreme Court stressed proportionality:
- Demolition causes severe economic and social harm.
- Buyers acted in good faith.
- No environmental disaster was proven.
- Restoration is preferable to destruction.
Hence, demolition was disproportionate.
Role of SSDA and Subsequent Compliance
The SSDA demonstrated:
- Suspension of further NOCs post-litigation
- Revision of development plans
- Consultation with experts, including IIT Kharagpur
- Efforts toward conservation
The Court acknowledged these steps and expunged adverse remarks against SSDA officials.
Constitutional Foundation: Article 300A and the “Authority of Law” Test
Article 300A of the Constitution provides that no person shall be deprived of property save by authority of law. This clause imposes two core requirements before the State can interfere with private property:
- A clear statutory basis authorising the action;
- Procedural fairness ensuring due consideration of facts and rights.
The Supreme Court reiterated that any demolition, being a form of deprivation, must rest on a clear statutory foundation and careful evaluation of factual circumstances. A failure to consider ownership rights and existing development patterns renders demolition legally suspect.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court:
- Set aside the demolition order.
- Upheld construction approvals.
- Recognised absence of proven ecological harm.
- Expunged remarks against officials.
- Directed continued environmental safeguards.
Click Here to Read the Official Judgment
Conclusion
The case highlights the delicate balance between development and environmental preservation. While Santiniketan’s heritage warrants protection, legal certainty and fairness to private actors remain paramount. The Supreme Court reaffirmed that ecological preservation must operate within statutory frameworks and that punitive measures like demolition must be proportionate and legally justified.
This decision serves as a guiding precedent for future disputes involving construction in culturally sensitive areas, emphasising that sustainable development requires transparent regulations and consistent administrative action.
Important Link
Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams
