These appeals arose out of a judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court at Calcutta whereby the High Court directed demolition of a building constructed by the appellant on a plot of land admeasuring 0.39 acres, near the Visva-Bharati University, and also directed it to pay compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-, which was to be used for the purpose of restoration and preservation of the area in question, and costs of Rs.25,000/- to be paid to the petitioners.

A 2-Judges Bench of the Supreme Court observed that even if there was any infirmity in the timing or manner of conversion of the subject plot, such infirmity could not have the effect of invalidating the entire construction-

“34. …At best, such an infirmity would warrant regulatory scrutiny or corrective measures in accordance with law. It would not, however, justify the extreme consequence of demolition of a completed structure, particularly when the land was earmarked for “residential use” as per the Land Use and Development Control Plan, 2002 and the conversion was subsequently approved by the competent authority and no statutory provision mandated demolition as an automatic or inevitable consequence of such a defect.”.

The Bench held –

“52. Equally significant is the principle governing the exercise of jurisdiction in public interest litigation (PIL). While writ jurisdiction serves an important constitutional purpose, the burden squarely lies on the writ petitioners to place clear, cogent, and reliable material on record in support of the allegations made. 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 appeal was allowed and the judgment of the High Court was set aside.