In a significant legal development concerning land use in West Bengal's cultural heartland, the Supreme Court of India has overturned a demolition order issued by the Calcutta High Court against a residential building near Visva-Bharati University in Santiniketan. The apex court ruled that there was insufficient tangible evidence to prove the structure was built on the protected 'khoai' area, an ecologically and culturally preserved zone.
Court Cites Lack of Scientific Evidence
A two-judge bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta delivered the judgment, emphasizing the absence of reliable scientific material to establish the 'khoai' character of the plot in question. The bench stated, "In the absence of reliable scientific material establishing the 'khoai' character of the subject plot, the foundational premise on which the HC proceeded to issue the directions cannot be said to be conclusively borne out from the record." This observation formed the core of the Supreme Court's decision to set aside the High Court's order.
Background of the Litigation
The legal dispute originated from an August 22, 2013 order by a division bench of the Calcutta High Court. That order declared a residential building developed by Aarsuday Projects & Infrastructure (P) Ltd at Ballavpur mouza in Santiniketan on 0.39 acres as illegal, asserting it was constructed on 'khoai' land. Consequently, the High Court had directed the developers to pay compensation of Rs 10 lakh for restoration and an additional fine of Rs 25,000.
Land Use History and Petitioners' Claims
Historical records reveal that in 2002, the Planning Authority published a Land Use and Development Control Plan, which earmarked 28.12 acres as a "residential area." This designation included the contentious 0.39-acre plot. Subsequently, the land's classification was officially changed from 'danga' (barren) to 'bastu' (residential), further complicating the legal landscape.
Despite these official changes, the petitioners in the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) argued that the land retained its 'khoai' character, warranting protection and demolition of the building. However, the Supreme Court found their claims lacking in concrete evidence.
Supreme Court Imposes Fine on PIL Petitioners
In a notable move, the Supreme Court imposed a fine of Rs 1 lakh on the individuals who filed the PIL. The court noted that three of the petitioners failed to disclose that they owned houses "in the immediate vicinity and within the same tract of land." This omission raised questions about their motives and the transparency of the litigation, leading to the financial penalty.
Implications for Land Development and Conservation
This ruling underscores the critical importance of robust scientific evidence in environmental and cultural preservation cases. It highlights the delicate balance between development activities and the protection of ecologically sensitive zones like the 'khoai' areas in Santiniketan, a region renowned for its heritage and natural beauty.
The decision may set a precedent for future disputes involving land use in protected zones, emphasizing that claims must be substantiated with reliable data rather than mere assertions. For stakeholders in real estate and conservation, this case serves as a reminder of the legal complexities surrounding land classification and development in culturally significant regions.
