Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | C.A. No.-002920-002920 – 2018 |
| Diary Number | 28062/2013 |
| Judge Name | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH |
| Bench | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH; HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA |
| Precedent Value | Binding |
| Overrules / Affirms | Overrules Calcutta High Court’s demolition order; distinguishes Sushanta Tagore v. Union of India & Ors. (2005) 3 SCC 16 |
| Type of Law | Constitutional; administrative; environmental |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi | Where private land is earmarked for residential use under a notified plan and the building plan is duly vetted by the Zilla Parishad and treated as approved by the Gram Panchayat, subsequent conversion irregularities do not automatically render the construction illegal or warrant demolition absent statutory prohibition. Public interest litigation cannot be entertained on disputed factual issues requiring scientific or record-based proof of environmental restrictions; the burden lies on petitioners to furnish clear evidence. Procedural lapses in sanctioning building plans by lesser bodies are curable and do not justify draconian remedies when bona fide approvals are obtained. Prior Supreme Court directives on eco-sensitive ‘khoai’ land in Sushanta Tagore do not apply where no notification preserved the land or no specific prohibition existed at the time of construction. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Private developer purchased a 0.39-acre plot earmarked residential in SSDA’s 2002 plan; building plan was vetted by ZP and approved by the Gram Panchayat; SSDA’s Sub-Committee and DL&LRO later granted conversion from “danga” to “bastu”; building completed; HC PIL challenged construction as on “khoai” land, HC ordered demolition; SC set aside HC order for lack of evidence and procedural fairness. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All courts hearing PILs on land-use and environmental restrictions |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts revisiting PIL challenges to construction |
| Overrules | Calcutta HC judgment and demolition order in Writ Petition No. 8341(W) of 2012 |
| Distinguishes | Sushanta Tagore v. Union of India & Ors. (2005) 3 SCC 16 |
| Follows | Chairman, GRIDCO v. Sukamani Das (1999) 7 SCC 298; Shubhas Jain v. Rajeshwari Shivam (2021) 20 SCC 454 |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- SC underscores burden of proof on PIL petitioners: clear, site-specific evidence required before quashing approved construction.
- Validly vetted and approved building plans by Gram Panchayat (vetted by Zilla Parishad) on land earmarked residential enjoy presumption of legality; procedural lapses are curable, not destruction-worthy.
- Public interest jurisdiction cannot be used to litigate disputed factual issues like ‘khoai’ classification without scientific data or official notifications preserving such land.
- Private property rights under Article 300A protect developers where statutory authorization exists and no clear prohibition.
- Developers may cite this precedent to resist demolition applications based on environmental claims lacking statutory foundation or environmental clearance threshold.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Threshold for entertaining PIL on disputed facts: factual disputes requiring site-specific evidence are not resolved on affidavits alone.
- Public interest litigation principles: burden lies on petitioners to establish eco-sensitive status with scientific or documentary proof (GRIDCO; Shubhas Jain).
- Jurisdictional competence: building plan vetting by Zilla Parishad and approval by Gram Panchayat valid under Rule 28, West Bengal Panchayat Rules, and custom-practice.
- Constitutional property rights: Article 300A mandates clear statutory authority before deprivation of property.
- Curability of procedural irregularities: minor defects in sanctioning processes do not warrant demolition when bona fide approvals were obtained.
- Distinction from Sushanta Tagore: no notification preserving ‘khoai’ land or statutory prohibition existed at the time of construction, hence that judgment’s strictures did not apply.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner – Aarsuday Projects
- Land lawfully acquired and designated residential under 2002 SSDA plan.
- Building plan vetted by Birbhum Zilla Parishad, approved by Ruppur Gram Panchayat according to long-standing practice.
- SSDA’s Sub-Committee (including Visva-Bharati representatives) and DL&LRO later granted conversion from “danga” to “bastu”.
- Surrounding plots had similar approved constructions; selective targeting is arbitrary.
- Procedural lapses (use of GP vs. Panchayat Samiti) are curable and do not justify demolition absent fraud or clear statutory violation.
Respondent Nos. 1-7 (Writ Petitioners)
- Construction occurred on eco-sensitive “khoai” land in violation of Sushanta Tagore directives.
- No valid sanction from competent Panchayat Samiti; Gram Panchayat was incompetent.
- SSDA and DL&LRO disregarded Supreme Court mandate by permitting conversion and construction.
- High Court correctly ordered demolition and proceedings against officials for non-compliance.
SSDA
- SSDA’s role was limited to “No Objection Certificate” for land-use conversion; it never sanctioned building plans.
- SSDA acted within statutory framework; subsequent plan revision and public consultation underway.
- Directions against SSDA and its officers should be expunged.
Visva-Bharati University
- Construction impermissible on “khoai” land adjoining sanctuary; no valid permissions obtained.
- Supports High Court order.
Factual Background
Aarsuday Projects acquired a 0.39-acre private plot in Mouza Ballavpur, Birbhum, designated residential under the SSDA’s 2002 plan. After vetting of its building plan by the Birbhum Zilla Parishad, the Ruppur Gram Panchayat granted approval, and SSDA with DL&LRO later permitted conversion from “danga” to “bastu.” The multi-storey residential building was completed before a public interest writ petition alleged unauthorised construction on “khoai” land contrary to Sushanta Tagore. The Calcutta High Court ordered demolition, compensation, and sanctions against officials; the Supreme Court has now set that order aside for lack of conclusive evidence and procedural fairness.
Statutory Analysis
- Rule 28, West Bengal Panchayat (Gram Panchayat Administration) Rules, 2004: empowers Gram Panchayat to sanction building plans vetted by Zilla Parishad.
- Section 114A, West Bengal Panchayat Act: envisages Panchayat Samiti authority where notified development plans exist—held not to invalidate GP’s historical practice.
- Section 4C(2)(c), West Bengal Land & Land Reforms Act, 1955: empowers DL&LRO to permit conversion of land.
- SSDA’s statutory role under West Bengal Town & Country (Planning and Development) Act, 1979: limited to land-use planning and issuing “No Objection Certificates” for conversion—no power to sanction building plans.
- Article 300A, Constitution: right to property cannot be deprived except by statutory authority.
Procedural Innovations
- Sets a precedent that PILs challenging constructions in ecologically sensitive areas must be supported by site-specific scientific or official documentation.
- Clarifies that procedural lapses in building sanctions (Gram Panchayat vs. Panchayat Samiti) are curable and do not automatically lead to demolition.
- Emphasises Article 300A property protections in writ adjudication, requiring statutory authority before ordering demolition or deprivation.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – burden of proof principles from GRIDCO v. Sukamani Das and Shubhas Jain v. Rajeshwari Shivam.
- 🔄 Conflicting Decisions – deviates from Calcutta High Court’s broad application of Sushanta Tagore.