Facts: Aarsuday Projects constructed a building on a plot of land in Santiniketan, West Bengal. Respondents filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) alleging illegal construction on "khoai" land without proper permissions. The High Court ordered demolition and compensation. Aarsuday Projects, Sriniketan Santiniketan Development Authority (SSDA), and subsequent flat purchasers appealed. The land was designated for residential use in the Land Use and Development Control Plan, but recorded as "danga" (barren land) in revenue records. The Ruppur Gram Panchayat issued a No Objection Certificate (NOC) for construction, conditional on land conversion.Procedural Posture: The case reached the Supreme Court of India via special leave petitions against the High Court's judgment in a PIL. The appeals challenged the High Court's order for demolition, compensation, and adverse remarks against the SSDA.Issue: Was the High Court justified in ordering the demolition of the building based on the findings that the construction was illegal due to being on "khoai" land without proper permissions, and did the High Court err in its assessment of the regulatory framework and the bona fides of the writ petitioners?Holding: No, the High Court's judgment is set aside. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, holding that the High Court's decision was based on assumptions and inferential reasoning without clear, specific, and contemporaneous scientific evidence. The Court also imposed costs on the writ petitioners for not disclosing their existing residential structures in the same area.Reasoning: The Supreme Court found that the High Court erred in concluding the land was "khoai" without sufficient evidence. The reports relied upon by the High Court did not definitively classify the land as such. The Supreme Court emphasized that the land was privately owned and designated for residential use. The Court also noted that the SSDA had constituted a sub-committee that included representatives from Visva-Bharati University, which approved the land conversion. The Court found the High Court failed to consider that similar constructions existed in the area and questioned the bona fides of the writ petitioners for selectively targeting Aarsuday Projects. The Court held that the High Court should have exercised greater restraint in invoking its writ jurisdiction based on assumptions. The Supreme Court also highlighted the constitutional right to property under Article 300A, stating that demolition requires a clear statutory foundation and due consideration of factual and legal circumstances.