Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals filed by Appellants challenging the High Court's order directing demolition of their building in Santiniketan area. The High Court had allowed a public interest litigation filed by respondent Nos. 1-7, holding that the construction was illegal and violated the heritage status of Santiniketan. The Supreme Court examined the regulatory approvals obtained by the appellant from SSDA and other authorities, and found that the High Court had not properly considered these permissions. The Court also examined the bona fides of the writ petitioners and the burden of proof in PIL matters. The Supreme Court held that the appellant had obtained necessary permissions and the High Court's demolition order was not justified. The Court set aside the High Court's judgment and the directions for demolition, compensation, and costs.
Headnote
A) Environmental Law / Property Law – Construction on alleged “Khoai” land – Issue whether buildings constructed by appellant-developers were illegal and liable to demolition – District Magistrate relied on assumptions and unverified material to classify land as Khoai – No scientific, technical or expert evidence placed on record – High Court directed demolition based on said report – Supreme Court examined record and found absence of cogent material to establish that land in question was Khoai or ecologically sensitive – Held that drastic relief of demolition cannot be ordered on conjectures, surmises or incomplete reports – Demolition directions unsustainable and set aside – Status quo maintained (Paras 24-28, 31-34). B) Constitutional Law – Article 300A – Right to property – Judicial interference – Principles governing demolition of private property – Held, interference with lawful possession and construction must be supported by clear statutory authority and reliable evidence – Public Interest Litigation cannot dispense with requirement of proof – Authorities must act on objective, scientific and legally admissible material before directing demolition – Orders affecting property rights must satisfy standards of fairness, proportionality and due process – Appeals allowed; impugned orders quashed (Paras 29-30, 35-38).
Premium Content
The Headnote is only available to subscribed members.
Subscribe Now to access key legal points
Issue of Consideration: The Issue of whether the construction by the appellant on the subject plot was illegal and warranted demolition in light of the heritage status of Santiniketan and regulatory approvals obtained
Premium Content
The Issue of Consideration is only available to subscribed members.
Subscribe Now to access critical case issues
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the impugned judgment and order of the High Court dated 21st & 22nd August 2013, and held that the appellant's construction was not illegal as it had obtained necessary regulatory approvals
