PIL Cannot Be Permitted To Become A Vehicle For Selective Challenges: Supreme Court Sets Aside Calcutta HC Order On Khoai Land
Court cautions against targeted public interest litigation, holds land character must be proved by unimpeachable material, not assumptions or literary references
Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta, Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has set aside a Calcutta High Court order restraining lawful construction undertaken by Aarsuday Projects near Visva-Bharati University, holding that Public Interest Litigation (PIL) cannot be used to selectively target a single project by deciding disputed questions of land character on assumptions, particularly when similarly situated constructions remain unchallenged. The Court was further of the opinion that the High Court had exceeded the permissible limits of PIL jurisdiction.
The Bench further cautioned against targeted public interest litigation. Further said that while the concept of “khoai” land has found limited judicial recognition in earlier environmental litigation, its existence in any given case must be established through clear, scientific, and contemporaneous material, and cannot be presumed merely on the basis of surrounding geography or literary references.
While referring to the photographs depicting the disputed construction/building and the adjoining structures, a bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta, observed, “A perusal of the photographs clearly shows that preexisting residential structures stood directly opposite the disputed construction/building, separated merely by a road, and were also located within the same larger tract of land. It is difficult to perceive that “khoai” indentations could solely and exclusively exist on the single plot of land owned by Aarsuday Projects, while the nature of the land on which the adjoining and opposite constructions stood unremarkable. The omission to question the validity of these constructions before the writ court, despite them being located within the same parcel of land, raises a serious doubt as to the bona fides of the writ petitioners (respondent Nos. 1-7 herein) and lends credence to the contention that the writ petition selectively targeted the newly raised construction of Aarsuday Projects”.
"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", the bench further noted.
Senior Advocates Prasenjit Keswani appeared for the appellant, and Senior Advocates Jaideep Gupta, Rana Mukherjee appeared for the respondents.
The dispute arose from a construction raised by Aarsuday Projects on a 0.39-acre plot near Santiniketan, which the High Court had treated as preserved “khoai” land.
The Supreme Court noted at the outset that there is no land category called “khoai” under the revenue laws of West Bengal, and that the expression appears to have originated from the writings of Rabindranath Tagore, who used the term to describe a distinctive geological formation in the Birbhum region, marked by erosion of laterite soil resulting in gullies and canyon-like terrain.
Referring to its earlier decision in Sushanta Tagore and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (2005) 3 SCC 16, the Court recalled that the Calcutta High Court had declined to interdict construction around Santiniketan in the absence of statutory prohibitions, holding that development near Visva-Bharati University could not be restrained merely on ideological or cultural considerations.
The Supreme Court had, however, recognised the role of statutory environmental safeguards, particularly the requirement of prior environmental clearance for large projects.
The Court said that the present PIL seemed to be a sequel of Sushanta Tagore which came to be filed in the High Court alleging inter alia that the permission granted to Aarsuday Projects to construct a residential building was illegal inasmuch as the permission for construction was not granted by the competent authority and that the construction was being raised on “khoai” land which was impermissible in view of the mandate.
The Bench held that the selective targeting of Aarsuday Projects, without challenging similarly situated constructions, raised serious doubts about the bona fides of the PIL. It reiterated that public interest litigation cannot be used to resolve disputed questions of fact or to mount targeted challenges on inferential reasoning.
Allowing the appeals, the Supreme Court ruled that PIL jurisdiction could not be invoked to stall an otherwise approved construction when statutory clearances had been obtained and similarly placed developments were left untouched.
Cause Title: M/S Aarsuday Projects & Infrastructure (P) Ltd v. Jogen Chowdhury & Ors. [Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 93]
Appearances:
Appellant: Siddharth Bhatnagar, Prasenjit Keswani, Senior Advocates, Nirnimesh Dube, Ankur S. Kulkarni, Pratham Mehrotra, Pracheta Kar, Nadeem Afroz, Priya S. Bhalerao, Divyansha Gajallewar, Debdeep Banerjee, AOR M/s Lex Regis Law Offices, Amol Chitale, Shweta Singh Parihar, Pragya Baghel, Bikram Jeet Mukerjee, Hitesh Kumar Sharma, Dipal S. Gohasal, Akhileshwar Jha, Shreya Jha, Anupam Kumar, AOR Ranjan Mukherjee, Advocates.
Respondents: G. Arudhra Rao, Abhijit Sengupta, AOR, Paras Chauhan, Balmiki Prasad, Birendra Kumar, Navneet Singh, Vishal Kumar Singh, Vishal Arun, AOR, Siddharth Bhatnagar, Jaideep Gupta, Rana Mukherjee, Senior Advocates Nirnimesh Dube, Ankur S. Kulkarni, Pratham Mehrotra, Pracheta Kar, Nadeem Afroz, Priya S. Bhalerao, Divyansha Gajallewar, Debdeep Banerjee, M/s Lex Regis Law Offices, AOR, Nikilesh Ramachandran, AOR, M/S. Plr Chambers And Co., AOR, Sanjay Kumar Visen, AOR, Parth Sarathi, Prashant Sharma, Gyanendra Vikram Singh, Soumya Gulati, Himanshu Saroj, , Partha Sil, AOR, Chirag Joshi, Utkarsh Dwivedi, Srijit Datta, Sayani Bhattacharya, Racheeta Chawla, Riddhi Bose, Rishi Aggarwal, Sampriti Baksi, Kunal Mimani, AOR, Shraddha Chirania, Astha Sharma, AOR, Ranjan Mukherjee, AOR, , Manoj, Paritosh Sinha, Amitava Mitra, Naman Agarwal, Aparna Sinha, AOR, Muddam Thirupathi Reddy, Advocates.