In a significant ruling impacting urban development near heritage zones, the Supreme Court has set aside a Calcutta High Court order that had directed demolition of a residential complex near Santiniketan. The top court held that the High Court had erred in branding the construction illegal without properly examining statutory permissions and land records.
The case involved Aarsuday Projects & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., whose residential building near Visva-Bharati University had earlier been ordered to be demolished for allegedly violating environmental and land-use norms.
Read Also:- Kerala High Court Quashes Suicide Abetment Case, Says Angry Words Alone Don’t Prove Criminal
Background of the Case
The dispute revolved around a residential project built on a 0.39-acre plot in Mouza Ballavpur, Birbhum district, close to Santiniketan.
In 2013, a public interest petition was filed before the Calcutta High Court claiming that:
- The land was part of ecologically sensitive “khoai” terrain
- Construction violated Supreme Court directions in Sushanta Tagore v. Union of India
- Permissions were illegally granted
- The building threatened the cultural and environmental heritage of Santiniketan
Accepting these claims, the High Court ordered:
- Demolition of the entire structure
- ₹10 lakh compensation for environmental restoration
- Action against government officials who approved the project
This prompted appeals before the Supreme Court by:
- Aarsuday Projects
- Sriniketan-Santiniketan Development Authority (SSDA)
- Flat purchasers affected by the demolition order
Read Also:-Delhi High Court Rejects Sameer Wankhede’s Defamation Suit Against Netflix Show ‘Ba*ds
What the Supreme Court Examined
A bench led by Justice Mehta closely examined:
- Land records and zoning plans
- Permissions issued by local authorities
- The concept of “khoai land” under law
- Applicability of earlier rulings on Santiniketan’s ecological protection
The court noted that while Santiniketan holds immense cultural and environmental value, legal decisions must be based on statutory evidence, not assumptions.
Court’s Key Observations
The Supreme Court made several crucial findings:
1. Land Was Legally Classified as Residential
The court noted that the land was recorded as “danga” (barren land) in official revenue records and was part of a residential zone under the 2002 Development Plan.
“There was no official classification of the plot as ‘khoai land’ under any statutory record,” the bench observed.
2. No Proof That Construction Violated Environmental Law
The court found that:
- The Pollution Control Board had not required clearance due to limited built-up area
- No statutory notification declared the land prohibited for construction
- The building was raised after local approvals were granted
The bench remarked that ecological concerns must be supported by law, not inference.
Read Also:- UGC's 2026 Anti-Discrimination Rules Face Protest by Lawyers Near Allahabad High Court
3. High Court Overreached Its Jurisdiction
The Supreme Court said the High Court relied excessively on assumptions and inspection reports without legal backing.
“The conclusion that the land was ‘khoai’ was drawn without any statutory determination,” the court noted.
4. Demolition Was Disproportionate
Calling demolition an extreme step, the court said such action can be ordered only when construction is patently illegal - not when approvals exist and violations are procedural.
On Permissions and Authority
The bench clarified that:
- SSDA had authority over land-use planning
- The plot was marked residential long before construction
- Conversion from “danga” to “bastu” was approved
- Any procedural lapse by authorities could not justify demolishing a completed building
It also rejected the view that earlier judgments in the Sushanta Tagore case automatically banned all construction near Santiniketan.
Read Also:- Supreme Court Sets Aside Odisha Land Dispute Orders, Says Section 47 CPC Misused After Decree
Final Decision of the Court
Allowing the appeals, the Supreme Court:
- Set aside the Calcutta High Court’s demolition order
- Quashed the ₹10 lakh compensation direction
- Cleared Aarsuday Projects of illegal construction charges
- Set aside adverse remarks against government officials
The court concluded:
“The construction cannot be branded illegal merely on perception of ecological sensitivity without statutory backing.”
Case Title: M/s Aarsuday Projects & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. Jogen Chowdhury & Ors.
Case No.: Civil Appeal Nos. 2920–2923 of 2018
Decision Date: 29 January 2026
