Aarsuday Projects & Infrastructure (P) Ltd v. Jogen Chowdhury 2026 INSC 93 - Art. 300A - Demolition Of Privately Owned Property - PIL

Demolition - In the absence of any tangible evidence of fraud, misrepresentation, or deliberate circumvention of statutory requirements, such a procedural lapse, even if assumed to exist, for arguments sake, could not render the construction per se illegal, nor could it justify the issuance of a direction for demolition, which is an extremely draconian consequence reserved for cases of blatant and substantive illegalities and violation. (Para 36) [Context: It was contended that Gram Panchayat was not the competent authority to accord approval to the building plan and that such authority vested exclusively in the Panchayat Samiti]

Constitution of India - Article 300A - Any interference with privately owned property, including by way of demolition or deprivation of its beneficial use, must therefore rest on a clear statutory foundation and be preceded by due consideration of all relevant factual and legal circumstances. (Para 41) [Context: The Supreme Court set aside the Calcutta High Court’s order directing demolition of a multi‑storey building constructed by Aarsuday Projects near Visva‑Bharati, holding that there was no clear, scientific or contemporaneous material to show the plot itself was “khoai” land and that the developer had acted on approvals granted by the competent authorities.]

Constitution of India - Article 226 - Pubic Interest litigation -While writ jurisdiction serves an important constitutional purpose, the burden squarely lies on the writ petitioners to place clear, cogent, and reliable material on record in support of the allegations made. Courts exercising writ jurisdiction must remain circumspect while entertaining petitions that hinge upon disputed questions of fact, particularly where such disputes require detailed examination of evidence or adjudication of rival factual claims. Public interest litigation cannot be permitted to become a vehicle for selective or targeted challenges, nor can it be invoked to resolve contested factual issues which are not capable of determination on affidavits alone. (Para 52)