Latest News

Supreme Court: Demolition of Private Property Under Article 300A Must Be Supported by Clear Evidence; Extreme Step for Blatant Illegalities Only

Supreme Court: Demolition of Private Property Under Article 300A Must Be Supported by Clear Evidence; Extreme Step for Blatant Illegalities Only

Supreme Court: Demolition of Private Property Under Article 300A Must Be Supported by Clear Evidence; Extreme Step for Blatant Illegalities Only

In a landmark ruling on January 29, 2026, the Supreme Court of India reinforced constitutional protections for private property by setting aside a demolition order of a multi-storey building issued by the Calcutta High Court. The apex court emphasised that demolition affecting private property under Article 300A of the Constitution “must be founded on clear, cogent, and site-specific evidence of illegality” and observed that demolition is “an extreme measure, reserved for blatant illegalities.”

Property Rights & Article 300A — Strong Constitutional Safeguards

Article 300A guarantees that no person shall be deprived of their property save by the authority of law. The Supreme Court clarified that any interference with ownership — including demolition or loss of beneficial use — must rest on a clear statutory foundation and be preceded by a thorough consideration of factual and legal circumstances.

The Court criticised the Calcutta High Court’s demolition direction against Aarsuday Projects & Infrastructure Projects (P) Ltd, noting there was “no clear, scientific or contemporaneous material” to confirm the plot was “khoai” land as alleged. The term “khoai,” referring to lateritic soil formations described by Rabindranath Tagore, was not a recognised category under West Bengal revenue laws, undermining the factual basis of the High Court’s decision.

Bench’s Observations: Due Process and Evidentiary Standards

A two-judge bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta underscored the necessity of strong evidence before disrupting property rights:

The bench reiterated that public interest litigation cannot be permitted to become a vehicle for selective or targeted challenges, especially where contested factual issues cannot be resolved through affidavits.

Importantly, the Court noted that the project had obtained requisite approvals from the competent authorities, and any minor conversion irregularity — such as the timing or manner of land use change from “danga” (barren land) to “bastu” (residential) — could not automatically invalidate the entire construction when there was no statutory provision mandating demolition as the inevitable outcome.

Supreme Court: Demolition of Private Property Under Article 300A Must Be Supported by Clear Evidence; Extreme Step for Blatant Illegalities Only

Demolition: Extreme and Disproportionate Without Blatant Illegalities

The apex court’s order aligns with similar judicial thinking that demolition is an extreme and disproportionate action when illegality is not proven beyond reasonable doubt. The top court stressed that even where authorities may find procedural lapses, regulatory scrutiny or corrective measures are more appropriate than demolition, especially when land use and planning permissions are in force.

The verdict also touched upon competency to grant approvals, refuting contentions that the Gram Panchayat lacked authority to approve building plans. The Court held that the November 5, 2011 approval by the Ruppur Gram Panchayat was valid and cannot be faulted.

Implications for Future Litigation and Property Law

This judgment reaffirms the Supreme Court’s commitment to protecting fundamental property rights. It clarifies that demolition orders must be the last resort and only upheld where illegality is blatant, well-evidenced, and backed by statute — not on speculative or unverified claims. Legal experts assert that this ruling will significantly impact how courts assess property disputes and demolition orders in future cases.


Swati Kumari

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *