The Supreme Court on Thursday cleared the way for the continuation of a private housing project near the iconic Visva-Bharati University in West Bengal, setting aside a Calcutta High Court order that had directed the demolition of the construction. The top court held that there was no legal basis for categorising the disputed land as “khoai” and found no illegality in the approvals granted to the developer.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta observed that while the High Court had described the land as “khoai” — a term made popular by Rabindranath Tagore to describe the red laterite formations of the Birbhum region — no such category exists under the West Bengal revenue statutes.
The bench noted that the term “khoai” appeared to be a literary and cultural reference rather than a legally enforceable land classification. “The description of ‘khoai’ appears to have been borrowed from the writings of Nobel Laureate Rabindranath Tagore,” the court said, adding that no statutory basis existed for treating such land as a protected category.
The court upheld the legality of the construction carried out by Aarsuday Projects, which had developed a residential building on 0.39 acres of land near the university. It found that the project had the necessary permissions from the Ruppur Gram Panchayat, which approved the building plan on November 5, 2011.
“Even if it is assumed, arguendo, that there was any infirmity in the timing or manner of conversion of the subject plot from ‘danga’ (barren land) to ‘bastu’ (residential use), such infirmity could not have the effect of invalidating the entire construction,” the bench ruled.
It stressed that demolition is a “draconian consequence” and can only be justified in cases of “blatant and substantive illegalities,” none of which were established in this case.
The court came down heavily on the petitioners who had filed the public interest litigation in the Calcutta High Court, noting that they had existing residences in the vicinity of the disputed construction but failed to disclose this fact. Holding the PIL to be selective and lacking in transparency, the bench imposed a cost of ₹1 lakh on the petitioners.
The top court criticised the High Court’s reliance on the 2005 Supreme Court verdict in Sushanta Tagore and literary references to Tagore’s depiction of “khoai” while ignoring the absence of concrete legal and documentary evidence.
“The PIL petitioners did not place on record any contemporaneous documentary evidence or admissible material to establish that the disputed construction was, in fact, raised on ‘khoai’ land,” the judgment noted.
Emphasising the limits of writ jurisdiction, the bench warned that public interest litigation should not be used as a tool for targeting or settling scores. “PIL cannot be permitted to become a vehicle for selective or targeted challenges,” it said, adding that such cases require “clear, cogent, and reliable” material on record.
The project site is located near Santiniketan’s Visva-Bharati University, a central institution founded by Tagore. The High Court had invoked cultural and ecological concerns over the fragile “khoai” terrain and sought to preserve the area from construction activity.
However, the Supreme Court held that aesthetics and heritage — while important — cannot override legal rights when statutory permissions have been obtained and there is no evidence of fraud or illegality.
