{"id":386586,"date":"2026-06-09T11:00:22","date_gmt":"2026-06-09T05:30:22","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=386586"},"modified":"2026-06-09T10:39:48","modified_gmt":"2026-06-09T05:09:48","slug":"sc-sets-aside-demolition-of-k-raheja-group-mall-and-hotel","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/06\/09\/sc-sets-aside-demolition-of-k-raheja-group-mall-and-hotel\/","title":{"rendered":"Doctrine of Proportionality Bars Demolition 17-Year-Old Commercial Complex Affecting 8,000 Livelihoods; SC Directs Regularisation of Illegal CIDCO Allotment on Payment of &#8377;318.31 Crores"},"content":{"rendered":"<style>\n.animate-charcter{background-image: linear-gradient(-225deg, #231557 0%, #44107a 29%, #ff1361 67%, #fff800 100%); background-size: 200% auto; -webkit-background-clip: text; -webkit-text-fill-color: transparent; animation: textclip 0s linear infinite;}\n@keyframes textclip {to {background-position: 200% center;}}\n<\/style>\n<div style=\"text-align: justify; line-height: 150%;\">\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\"><span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">Supreme Court:<\/span> The present appeal challenged the common judgment of the Bombay High Court dated 20 November 2014 and 21 November 2014 and, preferred by appellant, the developer, employees working in the K. Raheja Group&#8217;s Mall and Hotel developed on the subject land, and the Retailers Association of India. The controversy before the Court was not confined to the legality of the original allotment of land by City and Industrial Development Corporation Limited (CIDCO), which had already been found to be irregular, but extended to a larger question of public interest, i.e., whether, after the passage of more than 2 decades and the creation of substantial economic and social interests, public interest would be better served by demolition of the development or by a supervised regularisation accompanied by complete financial restitution to the public authority. Setting aside the impugned judgments insofar as it pertains to restoration of the subject plot to its original condition and delivery of vacant possession to CIDCO, the Division Bench of Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and <span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">Alok Aradhe<span style=\"vertical-align: super;\">*<\/span><\/span>, JJ., granted regularisation of illegal CIDCO allotment subject to payment of approximately &#8377; 318.31 crores plus &#8377; 1 crore towards the unfulfilled garden obligation, with adjustment of amounts already paid, holding that demolition of <span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">&#8220;a fully operational commercial complex after 17 years, &#8377; 450 crores of investment, 8000 livelihoods, and &#8377; 100 crores of annual tax revenue&#8221;<\/span>, impermissible where financial loss to public authority is fully remediable through monetary recovery.<\/p>\n<p>The Court held that,<\/p>\n<p class=\"animate-charcter\" style=\"margin-left: 36pt; margin-bottom: 3%; font-style: italic;\">&#8220;Demolition of a fully operational commercial complex after 17 years, &#8377; 450 crores of investment, 8000 livelihoods, and &#8377; 100 crores of annual tax revenue would not vindicate the public interest.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%; font-weight: bold;\">Also Read: <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/13\/ph-hc-on-punjab-kesari-hotel-plea-against-demolition\/\" target=\"_blank\"><span class=\"Hyperlink\"><span style=\"color: #0000ff;\">Punjab and Haryana HC directs alternate remedy in Punjab Kesari Group&#8217;s hotel demolition case; dismisses political vendetta claims<\/span><\/span><\/a><\/p>\n<h3>Factual Matrix<\/h3>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The Government of Maharashtra, in the late 1960s, adopted a policy for development of Navi Mumbai as a planned twin city to Mumbai with the objective of decongesting the metropolis and creating a modern and self-sustaining urban centre. For implementation of this vision, CIDCO was constituted as the New Town Development Authority under the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002874824\" target=\"_blank\">Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966<\/a>. Vast tracts of land spread across 96 villages in Thane and Raigad Districts were acquired and entrusted to CIDCO for systematic urban development.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">Sector 30-A at Vashi was earmarked for information technology industries and designated as the International Infotech Park. The total area reserved for this purpose measured 57,180 sq m. Out of this, 31,232 sq m had already been allotted to various IT companies. However, owing to a significant downturn in the global IT industry in the early 2000s, CIDCO reconsidered the utility of retaining the entire area exclusively for IT purposes. Consequently, on 30 April 2003, the Board of Directors of CIDCO approved conversion of 22,337 sq m for residential, commercial and office use.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">On 20 August 2003, K. Raheja Corp. applied for allotment of land in the sector. The CIDCO Board, in its meeting dated 17 September 2003, approved allotment of plots measuring 29,000 sq m, including the subject plot of 3611 sq m, in favour of the developer. The allotment was made at the rate of &#8377; 10,250 per square metre. The allotment was granted in anticipation of formal governmental approval and subject to the condition that the developer would develop a garden on adjoining at its own cost.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">A formal letter of allotment was issued on 8 October 2003 and a lease agreement was executed on 16 December 2003. The allotment was immediately challenged through public interest litigations (PILs) before the Bombay High Court. Initially, a status quo order was granted on 17 December 2003 but was vacated on 23 April 2004 with the clarification that the allotment would remain subject to the final outcome of the PIL proceedings.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%; font-weight: bold;\">Also Read: <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/31\/bombay-hc-tenants-right-to-timely-redevelopment\/\" target=\"_blank\"><span class=\"Hyperlink\"><span style=\"color: #0000ff;\">Tenants&#8217; right to timely redevelopment prevails over developer&#8217;s commercial interests: Bombay High Court<\/span><\/span><\/a><\/p>\n<h3>Sankaran Committee Inquiry<\/h3>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The Government of Maharashtra directed Dr D.K. Sankaran, Additional Chief Secretary, to conduct an inquiry into the functioning of CIDCO during the tenure of its then Vice-Chairman and Managing Director. After examining CIDCO&#8217;s land disposal policy and the relevant transactions, the Sankaran Committee submitted its report on 31 March 2005.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The Committee categorised allotments into 3 classes, namely, cases involving serious irregularities, doubtful allotments, and allotments appearing reasonable. In relation to the subject plot allotted to K. Raheja Corp., the Committee found that the plot ought to have been disposed of through a competitive tender process in accordance with CIDCO&#8217;s prevailing policy. The Committee relied on the assessment of CIDCO&#8217;s Chief Economist, who estimated the market value of a residential-cum-commercial plot in September 2002 at &#8377; 20,791 per square metre. Since the plot had been allotted at only &#8377; 10,250 per square metre without any competitive bidding, the Committee estimated a financial loss of approximately &#8377; 50 crores to CIDCO. It recommended cancellation of the allotment and disposal of the land through public tender, along with action against the responsible officials.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The Committee further observed that CIDCO had made 61 allotments in violation of applicable regulations, resulting in an estimated loss of &#8377; 347 crores. It recommended cancellation wherever feasible and recovery of differential market value wherever cancellation was impracticable.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%; font-weight: bold;\">Also Read: <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/02\/05\/one-sided-agreement-developer-buyer-bsp-refund-sc-legal-news\/\" target=\"_blank\"><span class=\"Hyperlink\"><span style=\"color: #0000ff;\">One-sided Developer-Buyer Agreement; SC refuses to interfere in NCDRC&#8217;s order to refund amount in excess of 10% of BSP<\/span><\/span><\/a><\/p>\n<h3>Subsequent Developments and Banthia Committee<\/h3>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">Acting upon the Sankaran Report, CIDCO resolved on 6 June 2005 to implement its recommendations. Since construction on the subject plot had already commenced pursuant to permissions granted by CIDCO, the Board decided to issue a show-cause notice and recover the financial loss. Subsequently, in compliance with judicial directions, the developer furnished a bank guarantee of &#8377; 50 crores on 2 September 2008.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">Meanwhile, the developer completed construction of a large shopping mall and hotel complex with a built-up area of approximately 10,50,000 square feet at an investment of about &#8377; 450 crores. The Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation issued an occupancy certificate on 16 September 2008, and the mall and hotel became operational in 2009.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">By the impugned judgment dated 20 November 2014 and 21 November 2014, the High Court declared the allotment illegal and arbitrary and held it violative of Article <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001574870\" target=\"_blank\">14<\/a> of the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002726967\" target=\"_blank\">Constitution<\/a>. The developer was directed to restore the land to its original condition and hand over vacant possession to CIDCO within 6 months. However, recognising the peculiar facts, the High Court granted liberty to the developer to seek regularisation. Importantly, neither the liberty granted by the High Court nor CIDCO&#8217;s regularisation policy was challenged by the PIL petitioners.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">During the pendency of the appeals, the developer applied for regularisation. The government constituted a one-man Committee headed by former Chief Secretary J.K. Banthia. The Banthia Committee submitted its report on 20 July 2017, observing that once the allotment had been judicially declared illegal, the original concessional valuation became irrelevant. It proposed that any regularisation should be prospective and based upon the market value prevailing in November 2014, when the High Court delivered its judgment. The 3 alternatives were suggested: payment of two-thirds, three-fourths, or the entirety of the prevailing market value. Ultimately, the Committee recommended a heavily penalised regularisation requiring payment of the full fair market value as of 2014.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The Advocate General later advised that the developer should be treated consistently with similarly situated allottees regularised under the 2005 policy. Thereafter, the government directed CIDCO to independently consider the application for regularisation. Acting pursuant to the Supreme Court&#8217;s interim directions, CIDCO passed a resolution dated 4 February 2026 approving regularisation on payment of &#8377; 50 crores towards differential premium, &#8377; 1 crore towards the Japanese Garden obligation, and interest thereon. The total amount payable under this formula was computed at &#8377; 257.87 crores.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The developer expressed willingness to pay the amount quantified by CIDCO, while the PIL petitioners opposed regularisation.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%; font-weight: bold;\">Also Read:<a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/05\/02\/gujarat-hc-refuses-to-stay-demolition-drive-on-chandola-lake\/\" target=\"_blank\"><span class=\"Hyperlink\"><span style=\"color: #0000ff;\"> &#8216;Illegal construction by residents, cannot claim vested right for resettlement &amp; rehabilitation&#8217;; Gujarat HC refuses to stay demolition drive on Chandola Lake<\/span><\/span><\/a><\/p>\n<h3>Issue for Determination<\/h3>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">Whether, in light of the profound and irreversible economic and social consequences that have since crystallised over 2 decades, the public interest is better served by demolition or by a rigorously supervised regularisation coupled with full financial restitution to the public authority?<\/p>\n<h3>Analysis and Findings<\/h3>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 18pt; font-weight: bold;\">The High Court&#8217;s Order: Scope of Challenge<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">At the outset, the Court observed that despite declaring the allotment illegal and arbitrary, the High Court had consciously refrained from quashing it. Instead, it expressly kept open the question of regularisation and granted liberty to the developer to apply for such relief. Since neither the regularisation policy nor the liberty granted by the High Court had been challenged, the Court held that the legal foundation for considering regularisation remained intact.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The Court also noted that Regulation 4 permitted disposal by considering individual applications. Therefore, the allotment could not be regarded as inherently illegal merely because it was not preceded by a public auction. The defect lay in the pricing methodology and lack of transparency, rather than the mode of allotment itself.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 18pt; font-weight: bold;\">Why Demolition Could Not Be Sustained<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The Court identified the central issue as whether demolition of the mall and hotel, as directed by the High Court, could be justified after 17 years of operation and answered the same in negative.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">Invoking the doctrine of proportionality, the Court held that the severity of a remedy must correspond to the nature of the wrong sought to be corrected. A remedy producing public harm disproportionate to its benefits cannot be sustained in constitutional jurisprudence. The Court held <span class=\"annotation&nbsp;reference\"><span style=\"\"><span class=\"upcast-ANNOTATIONNUMBER\"><\/span><\/span><span style=\"\"><!-- The Court held????? --><\/span><\/span>that the <span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">&#8220;passage of time and the accretion of economic and social reality have rendered demolition not merely impractical but demonstrably contrary to the public interest&#8221;.<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The Court emphasised several irreversible developments, such as, an investment of &#8377; 450 crores had been made in the project; the mall and hotel had been operating continuously since 2009; approximately 150 retailers conducted business within the complex and nearly 8000 individuals depended upon it for their livelihood. It was stated that third-party rights of retailers, employees, consumers and operators had become firmly established over 17 years.<\/p>\n<p class=\"animate-charcter\" style=\"margin-left: 36pt; margin-bottom: 3%; font-weight: bold;\">&#8220;Public law must be sensitive to the distinction between remedies that restore public welfare and remedies that merely punish, when punishment comes at the cost of the very public the law seeks to protect.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The Court accepted the reasoning of the Banthia Committee that the challenge was to enforce legality without inflicting disproportionate economic destruction. It held that <span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">&#8220;demolition of a fully operational commercial complex after seventeen years, &#8377; 450 crores of investment, 8000 livelihoods, and &#8377; 100 crores of annual tax revenue would not vindicate the public interest&#8221;.<\/span> It asserted that financial loss suffered by CIDCO could be compensated monetarily, whereas the consequences of demolition would be irreversible. Accordingly, the Court held that direction for restoration and demolition was unsustainable.<\/p>\n<p class=\"animate-charcter\" style=\"margin-left: 36pt; margin-bottom: 3%; font-weight: bold;\">&#8220;An adjudication, as we have observed, cannot occur in a vacuum divorced from subsequent reality&#8230; . A regularisation conditioned upon payment of full market value as of 2014 achieves all three objectives. Demolition achieves none.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 18pt; font-weight: bold;\">Regularisation and Determination of Quantum<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">Having concluded that regularisation was the appropriate remedy, the Court proceeded to determine the amount payable. The Court rejected the developer&#8217;s claim for parity with other allottees who had been regularised under the 2005 policy. It held that a large commercial developer operating a massive shopping mall and hotel could not be equated with co-operative housing societies or individual allottees. Equality under Article 14 does not require that unequals be treated as equals.<\/p>\n<p class=\"animate-charcter\" style=\"margin-left: 36pt; margin-bottom: 3%; font-weight: bold;\">&#8220;The parity of treatment is warranted only among those who are similarly situated in all material respects. The developer plainly is not.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The Court compared the approaches adopted by the Sankaran Committee and the Banthia Committee and found the Sankaran methodology inadequate because it was based upon market conditions prevailing in 2005 and did not reflect subsequent appreciation in land values. Moreover, the Sankaran Committee&#8217;s mandate was to quantify loss and recommend cancellation, not to determine the price of regularisation decades later.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The Court found the Banthia Committee&#8217;s reasoning more persuasive. Once the allotment had been declared illegal, regularisation had to be treated as a fresh conferment of legal legitimacy. Therefore, the developer was required to pay the market value of the land as on the date of the High Court judgment, namely, November 2014. This approach ensured that the developer did not benefit from an outdated valuation, secured full economic value for CIDCO, imposed a genuinely punitive financial consequence, and aligned with established public law principles requiring an entity seeking regularisation to bear the full cost of legality.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The Court examined ready reckoner rates applicable to Sector 30-A, Vashi and found that the prevailing rate in 2014 was &#8377; 54,400 per square metre. The subject plot measured 30,582 sq m. Accordingly, the market value of the land in 2014 was calculated at &#8377; 1,66,36,60,800 and interest at 8 per cent per annum from 1 December 2014 to 30 April 2026 was quantified at &#8377; 1,51,94,76,864. Thus, the aggregate liability was determined at &#8377; 3,18,31,37,664.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">Since the developer had already paid consideration at &#8377; 10,250 per square metre and was willing to pay &#8377; 262.87 crores under CIDCO&#8217;s formula, the Court held that an additional sum of &#8377; 55,44,37,664 remained payable in the larger public interest.<\/p>\n<h3>Directions<\/h3>\n<p>The Court issued the following directions:<\/p>\n<ol style=\"list-style-type: decimal;\">\n<li>\n<p>The developer should pay &#8377; 3,18,31,37,664, representing the fair market value of the subject plot determined with reference to the November 2014 ready reckoner rates and interest thereon.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<li>\n<p>Amount already paid towards the purchase price at &#8377; 10,250 per square metre shall be adjusted against the total liability.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<li>\n<p>The developer should additionally pay &#8377; 1 crore for failure to develop the garden on Plot No. 40.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<li>\n<p>Upon payment of the aforesaid amounts within 4 months, the allotment should stand regularised.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<li>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The dispute regarding Plot No. 39\/16, pending in W.P. No. 368 of 2015, should be decided independently by the High Court on its own merits.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<h3>Decision<\/h3>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The Court held that demolition of the Raheja Mall and Hotel functioning for 17 years, involving investments of &#8377; 450 crores and supporting thousands of livelihoods, would be disproportionate and contrary to public interest. Instead, the Court adopted the Banthia Committee approach and directed regularisation on payment of the full fair market value of the land as on November 2014 together with interest and other charges.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The Court partly allowed the appeals and modified the Bombay High Court&#8217;s judgment. The Court quashed the direction requiring restoration of the plot to its original condition and handing over of vacant possession to CIDCO.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%; font-weight: bold;\">Also Read: <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/05\/22\/sc-on-entitlement-of-additional-amenity-tdr-under-mrtp-act\/\" target=\"_blank\"><span class=\"Hyperlink\"><span style=\"color: #0000ff;\">MRTP Act | Additional Amenity TDR Cannot Be Defeated by Contractual Conditions or Delay Once Statutory Right to Compensation Crystallises: Supreme Court<\/span><\/span><\/a><\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">[<span style=\"font-weight: bold; color: #632423;\"><span style=\"font-style: italic;\">K. Raheja Corpn. (P) Ltd.<\/span> v. <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">State of Maharashtra<\/span>, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-9003487001\" target=\"_blank\">2026 SCC OnLine SC 945<\/a>, decided on 26-5-2026<\/span>]<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%; text-indent: 18pt; border: 2px solid black; border-radius: 10px; text-align: center; width: 50%; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; background-color: #DCDCDC;\"><strong><span style=\"color: #000080;\">*Judgment by <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/04\/13\/know-thy-judge-justice-alok-aradhe-supreme-court-of-india\/\" target=\"_blank\">Justice Alok Aradhe<\/a><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<hr\/>\n<p>Advocates who appeared in this case:<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 18pt;\">Mr. Siddharth Singla, AOR, Mr. E. C. Agrawala, AOR, Ms. Ranjeeta Rohatgi, AOR with Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Niranjan Reddy, Sr. Adv. Mr. Amar Dave, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Adv. Ms. Hemlata Jain, Adv. Ms. Rubi Singh Ahuja, Adv. Ms. Bindi Dave, Adv. Mr. Ankur Saigal, Adv. Mr. Pranaya Goyal, Adv. Mr. Victor Das, Adv. Mr. Dharav Shah, Adv. Mr. Aayush Maheshwari, Adv. Ms. Rajshree Jaiswal, Adv. Ms. Nidhi Sri, Adv. Ms. Sana Jain, Adv. Ms. Megha Dugar, Adv. Mr. Jappanpreet Hora, Adv. Ms. Shagun Parashar, Adv. Mr. Vedant Singh Choudhary, Adv. Mr. Yuvraj Kashyap, Adv., Counsel for the Appellant<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 18pt;\">Mrs. Shubhangi Tuli, AOR M\/S. S. M. Jadhav And Company, AOR Ms. Abha R. Sharma, AOR Mr. Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, AOR Mr. Sanjay Kharde, Sr. Adv. Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Adv. Mr. Samir Malik, AOR Mr. Tushar Mathur, Adv. Mr. Mahip Singh Sikarwar, Adv. Ms. Snehal Kaila, Adv. Mr. Nitin Bhardwaj, AOR Mr. Sanjay Kumar Visen, AOR M\/S. Black &amp; White Solicitors, AOR Mr. Suhaskumar Kadam, Adv. Mr. Harshit Bahal, Adv. Mr. Shekhar Naphade, Sr. Adv. Mr. Aniruddha Joshi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Shashibhushan P. Adgaonkar, AOR Ms. Salonee Paranjape, Adv. Mr. Karan Bishnoi, Adv. Mr. Anoop Raj, Adv. Mr. Chirag Zanwar, Adv. Ms. Shambhavi Kanade, Adv., Counsel for the Respondents<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p style=\"font-style: italic;\">By judgment day, the mall had been running for seventeen years, supporting 8,000 livelihoods and generating &#8377;100 crores in annual tax revenue. The Supreme Court held that demolition would not vindicate the public interest, it would destroy it.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67514,"featured_media":386587,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,9],"tags":[41346,20421,30168,57325,106629,55415,3391,106630,5363,46038,54389],"class_list":["post-386586","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-supremecourt","tag-cidco","tag-doctrine-of-proportionality","tag-justice-alok-aradhe","tag-justice-pamidighantam-sri-narasimha","tag-k-raheja-grou","tag-land-allotment","tag-public_interest","tag-regularisation-of-illegal-allotment","tag-supreme-court","tag-town-planning","tag-urban-development"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO Premium plugin v27.4 (Yoast SEO v27.4) - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-premium-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>SC Sets Aside Demolition of K. Raheja Droup&#039;s Mall and Hotel | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Supreme Court holds that demolition of K. Raheja group&#039;s mall and hotel over regularisation of illegal CIDCO Allotment is contrary to public interest and directs payment of \u20b9318.31 crore to CIDCO\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/06\/09\/sc-sets-aside-demolition-of-k-raheja-group-mall-and-hotel\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Doctrine of Proportionality Bars Demolition 17-Year-Old Commercial Complex Affecting 8,000 Livelihoods; SC Directs Regularisation of Illegal CIDCO Allotment on Payment of \u20b9318.31 Crores\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Supreme Court holds that demolition of K. Raheja group&#039;s mall and hotel over regularisation of illegal CIDCO Allotment is contrary to public interest and directs payment of \u20b9318.31 crore to CIDCO\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/06\/09\/sc-sets-aside-demolition-of-k-raheja-group-mall-and-hotel\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-06-09T05:30:22+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/doctrine-of-proportionality-public-land-allotment.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Ritu\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Doctrine of Proportionality Bars Demolition 17-Year-Old Commercial Complex Affecting 8,000 Livelihoods; SC Directs Regularisation of Illegal CIDCO Allotment on Payment of &#8377;318.31 Crores\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Ritu\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"NewsArticle\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/06\\\/09\\\/sc-sets-aside-demolition-of-k-raheja-group-mall-and-hotel\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/06\\\/09\\\/sc-sets-aside-demolition-of-k-raheja-group-mall-and-hotel\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Ritu\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/392f265bae2f48f0f0d02b8e0e9015b9\"},\"headline\":\"Doctrine of Proportionality Bars Demolition 17-Year-Old Commercial Complex Affecting 8,000 Livelihoods; SC Directs Regularisation of Illegal CIDCO Allotment on Payment of &#8377;318.31 Crores\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-06-09T05:30:22+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/06\\\/09\\\/sc-sets-aside-demolition-of-k-raheja-group-mall-and-hotel\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":2600,\"commentCount\":0,\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/06\\\/09\\\/sc-sets-aside-demolition-of-k-raheja-group-mall-and-hotel\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/06\\\/doctrine-of-proportionality-public-land-allotment.webp\",\"keywords\":[\"CIDCO\",\"doctrine of proportionality\",\"Justice Alok Aradhe\",\"Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha\",\"K. Raheja Grou\",\"land allotment\",\"public interest\u00a0\",\"Regularisation of Illegal Allotment\",\"Supreme Court\",\"town planning\",\"urban development\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Case Briefs\",\"Supreme Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/06\\\/09\\\/sc-sets-aside-demolition-of-k-raheja-group-mall-and-hotel\\\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/06\\\/09\\\/sc-sets-aside-demolition-of-k-raheja-group-mall-and-hotel\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/06\\\/09\\\/sc-sets-aside-demolition-of-k-raheja-group-mall-and-hotel\\\/\",\"name\":\"SC Sets Aside Demolition of K. Raheja Droup's Mall and Hotel | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/06\\\/09\\\/sc-sets-aside-demolition-of-k-raheja-group-mall-and-hotel\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/06\\\/09\\\/sc-sets-aside-demolition-of-k-raheja-group-mall-and-hotel\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/06\\\/doctrine-of-proportionality-public-land-allotment.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-06-09T05:30:22+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/392f265bae2f48f0f0d02b8e0e9015b9\"},\"description\":\"Supreme Court holds that demolition of K. Raheja group's mall and hotel over regularisation of illegal CIDCO Allotment is contrary to public interest and directs payment of \u20b9318.31 crore to CIDCO\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/06\\\/09\\\/sc-sets-aside-demolition-of-k-raheja-group-mall-and-hotel\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/06\\\/09\\\/sc-sets-aside-demolition-of-k-raheja-group-mall-and-hotel\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/06\\\/09\\\/sc-sets-aside-demolition-of-k-raheja-group-mall-and-hotel\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/06\\\/doctrine-of-proportionality-public-land-allotment.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/06\\\/doctrine-of-proportionality-public-land-allotment.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"doctrine of proportionality public land allotment\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/06\\\/09\\\/sc-sets-aside-demolition-of-k-raheja-group-mall-and-hotel\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Doctrine of Proportionality Bars Demolition 17-Year-Old Commercial Complex Affecting 8,000 Livelihoods; SC Directs Regularisation of Illegal CIDCO Allotment on Payment of &#8377;318.31 Crores\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/392f265bae2f48f0f0d02b8e0e9015b9\",\"name\":\"Ritu\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/c47318594774c1fe55e3e8c85dcd1909276373d9bf11730032fc1a7d05d56a47?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/c47318594774c1fe55e3e8c85dcd1909276373d9bf11730032fc1a7d05d56a47?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/c47318594774c1fe55e3e8c85dcd1909276373d9bf11730032fc1a7d05d56a47?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Ritu\"},\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/author\\\/editor_7\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"SC Sets Aside Demolition of K. Raheja Droup's Mall and Hotel | SCC Times","description":"Supreme Court holds that demolition of K. Raheja group's mall and hotel over regularisation of illegal CIDCO Allotment is contrary to public interest and directs payment of \u20b9318.31 crore to CIDCO","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/06\/09\/sc-sets-aside-demolition-of-k-raheja-group-mall-and-hotel\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Doctrine of Proportionality Bars Demolition 17-Year-Old Commercial Complex Affecting 8,000 Livelihoods; SC Directs Regularisation of Illegal CIDCO Allotment on Payment of \u20b9318.31 Crores","og_description":"Supreme Court holds that demolition of K. Raheja group's mall and hotel over regularisation of illegal CIDCO Allotment is contrary to public interest and directs payment of \u20b9318.31 crore to CIDCO","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/06\/09\/sc-sets-aside-demolition-of-k-raheja-group-mall-and-hotel\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2026-06-09T05:30:22+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/doctrine-of-proportionality-public-land-allotment.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Ritu","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"Doctrine of Proportionality Bars Demolition 17-Year-Old Commercial Complex Affecting 8,000 Livelihoods; SC Directs Regularisation of Illegal CIDCO Allotment on Payment of &#8377;318.31 Crores","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Ritu","Est. reading time":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"NewsArticle","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/06\/09\/sc-sets-aside-demolition-of-k-raheja-group-mall-and-hotel\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/06\/09\/sc-sets-aside-demolition-of-k-raheja-group-mall-and-hotel\/"},"author":{"name":"Ritu","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/392f265bae2f48f0f0d02b8e0e9015b9"},"headline":"Doctrine of Proportionality Bars Demolition 17-Year-Old Commercial Complex Affecting 8,000 Livelihoods; SC Directs Regularisation of Illegal CIDCO Allotment on Payment of &#8377;318.31 Crores","datePublished":"2026-06-09T05:30:22+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/06\/09\/sc-sets-aside-demolition-of-k-raheja-group-mall-and-hotel\/"},"wordCount":2600,"commentCount":0,"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/06\/09\/sc-sets-aside-demolition-of-k-raheja-group-mall-and-hotel\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/doctrine-of-proportionality-public-land-allotment.webp","keywords":["CIDCO","doctrine of proportionality","Justice Alok Aradhe","Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha","K. Raheja Grou","land allotment","public interest\u00a0","Regularisation of Illegal Allotment","Supreme Court","town planning","urban development"],"articleSection":["Case Briefs","Supreme Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/06\/09\/sc-sets-aside-demolition-of-k-raheja-group-mall-and-hotel\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/06\/09\/sc-sets-aside-demolition-of-k-raheja-group-mall-and-hotel\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/06\/09\/sc-sets-aside-demolition-of-k-raheja-group-mall-and-hotel\/","name":"SC Sets Aside Demolition of K. Raheja Droup's Mall and Hotel | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/06\/09\/sc-sets-aside-demolition-of-k-raheja-group-mall-and-hotel\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/06\/09\/sc-sets-aside-demolition-of-k-raheja-group-mall-and-hotel\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/doctrine-of-proportionality-public-land-allotment.webp","datePublished":"2026-06-09T05:30:22+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/392f265bae2f48f0f0d02b8e0e9015b9"},"description":"Supreme Court holds that demolition of K. Raheja group's mall and hotel over regularisation of illegal CIDCO Allotment is contrary to public interest and directs payment of \u20b9318.31 crore to CIDCO","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/06\/09\/sc-sets-aside-demolition-of-k-raheja-group-mall-and-hotel\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/06\/09\/sc-sets-aside-demolition-of-k-raheja-group-mall-and-hotel\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/06\/09\/sc-sets-aside-demolition-of-k-raheja-group-mall-and-hotel\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/doctrine-of-proportionality-public-land-allotment.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/doctrine-of-proportionality-public-land-allotment.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"doctrine of proportionality public land allotment"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/06\/09\/sc-sets-aside-demolition-of-k-raheja-group-mall-and-hotel\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Doctrine of Proportionality Bars Demolition 17-Year-Old Commercial Complex Affecting 8,000 Livelihoods; SC Directs Regularisation of Illegal CIDCO Allotment on Payment of &#8377;318.31 Crores"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/392f265bae2f48f0f0d02b8e0e9015b9","name":"Ritu","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/c47318594774c1fe55e3e8c85dcd1909276373d9bf11730032fc1a7d05d56a47?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/c47318594774c1fe55e3e8c85dcd1909276373d9bf11730032fc1a7d05d56a47?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/c47318594774c1fe55e3e8c85dcd1909276373d9bf11730032fc1a7d05d56a47?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Ritu"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_7\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/doctrine-of-proportionality-public-land-allotment.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/386586","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67514"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=386586"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/386586\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":386590,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/386586\/revisions\/386590"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/386587"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=386586"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=386586"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=386586"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}