Demolition of Private Property Must Be Based on Clear Statutory Grounds: Supreme Court Reaffirms Protection Under Article 300A

Introduction

In a significant judgment reinforcing constitutional protection of property rights, the Supreme Court of India has held that demolition of privately owned property cannot be ordered on mere conjectures or assumptions, and must be firmly grounded in clear statutory authority and reliable scientific evidence. Setting aside a demolition order passed by the Calcutta High Court, the Court reiterated that Article 300A of the Constitution, which protects the right to property, cannot be lightly interfered with, even in the name of public interest litigation.

Contents

Introduction Background of the Case Issues Before the Supreme Court Supreme Court’s Key Observations Article 300A and Right to Property Why the High Court’s Order Was Set Aside Significance of the Judgment Conclusion

The ruling came in M/s Aarsuday Projects & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. Jogen Chowdhury & Ors., reported by Lexibal, and was delivered by a Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta.

Background of the Case

The dispute arose from a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed before the Calcutta High Court, challenging the legality of a residential housing project constructed on a 0.39-acre plot in Mouza Ballavpur, Santiniketan, near Visva-Bharati University.

The PIL alleged that the construction stood on “khoai” land, a unique and ecologically sensitive geological formation found in parts of West Bengal, and that permissions for the project had been granted by incompetent authorities, including the Sriniketan Santiniketan Development Authority (SSDA) and the local Gram Panchayat.

In 2013, the Calcutta High Court accepted these allegations and ordered:

Demolition of the fully constructed building
Payment of ₹10 lakh as compensation for environmental restoration
Initiation of proceedings against public officials involved in granting permissions

This prompted appeals before the Supreme Court by:

Aarsuday Projects & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.
SSDA
Affected flat purchasers

Issues Before the Supreme Court

The principal questions before the Court were:

Whether the construction was conclusively proven to be on “khoai” land
Whether the High Court was justified in ordering demolition in the absence of clear scientific evidence
Whether PIL jurisdiction can be invoked based on assumptions and incomplete factual foundations
The scope of Article 300A in protecting private property against arbitrary state action

Supreme Court’s Key Observations

1. Demolition Requires Clear Statutory Foundation

The Court categorically held that any interference with privately owned property, including demolition or deprivation of its beneficial use, must:

Be based on clear statutory authority
Follow due consideration of all relevant factual and legal circumstances

Justice Mehta, writing the judgment, observed:

“Any interference with privately owned property, including by way of demolition or deprivation of its beneficial use, must rest on a clear statutory foundation…”

The Court found that such an exercise was entirely absent in the present case.

2. Conjectures and Surmises Cannot Justify Demolition

A major ground for setting aside the High Court’s order was the absence of cogent scientific evidence proving that the subject plot was “khoai” land.

The Supreme Court strongly criticised the District Magistrate’s report, noting that:

It was based on mere conjectures and surmises
No proper site inspection was conducted
No expert-led spot verification was undertaken

The Court emphasised that PIL jurisdiction cannot be invoked on assumptions, especially when the consequence is irreversible, such as demolition of a residential building.

3. Adjacent Land Being ‘Khoai’ Is Not Enough

The Court examined the report of the West Bengal Pollution Control Board (WBPCB), which merely stated that the surrounding area was colloquially referred to as “khoai”.

Importantly, the Court noted:

“Khoai formations were noticed on the land adjacent to the subject plot… which clearly negates the assumption that the subject plot itself was of khoai nature.”

Thus, proximity to an ecologically sensitive area does not automatically render the property itself illegal.

4. Selective Targeting Undermines PIL Credibility

Another significant factor was that similarly situated constructions in the same tract of land were left unchallenged.

The Court held that selective invocation of PIL jurisdiction, without consistent application of environmental norms, weakens the legitimacy of such actions and raises concerns of arbitrariness.

Article 300A and Right to Property

While the right to property is no longer a fundamental right, the Supreme Court reiterated that Article 300A remains a valuable constitutional guarantee.

The Court reaffirmed that:

Property cannot be deprived except by authority of law
Executive action affecting property must be fair, reasonable, and legally sanctioned
Demolition orders, being drastic in nature, require strict compliance with legal standards

This judgment aligns with the Court’s broader jurisprudence cautioning against bulldozer justice and arbitrary deprivation of property.

Why the High Court’s Order Was Set Aside

Allowing the appeals, the Supreme Court concluded that:

The foundational premise of the demolition order was legally unsustainable
No clear, specific, or contemporaneous scientific evidence established the “khoai” character of the plot
The High Court acted on assumptions rather than proof

Accordingly, the demolition directions, compensation orders, and proceedings against officials were set aside.

Significance of the Judgment

This ruling is significant for several reasons:

Reinforces limits on PIL jurisdiction in property and environmental matters
Strengthens protection under Article 300A against arbitrary state action
Clarifies that environmental concerns must be evidence-based, not speculative
Sends a strong message against mechanical demolition orders
Protects homebuyers and third-party rights affected by judicial overreach

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Aarsuday Projects v. Jogen Chowdhury is a crucial reminder that public interest cannot override private property rights without strict legal justification. While environmental protection remains a vital constitutional goal, the means adopted to achieve it must be lawful, proportionate, and supported by credible evidence.

By insisting on statutory backing, scientific proof, and procedural fairness, the Court has once again upheld the rule of law and constitutional balance between development, environment, and individual rights.