In a significant ruling on land use and environmental safeguards, the Supreme Court of India has set aside the change of land use (CLU) granted for a proposed cement grinding unit in Sangrur, Punjab.
The Bench, led by Justice Vikram Nath, made it clear that statutory Master Plans cannot be diluted through executive approvals or post-facto endorsements. “A permission must be lawful when it is granted,” the Court observed. “It cannot be rendered lawful by a later event unless the statute so provides.”
Read also:- Gujarat HC Clears Way for Police Recruit, Says Minor, Quashed FIR Can’t Block Appointment
Background of the Case
The dispute began when agriculturists from Sangrur and a nearby school challenged the CLU granted on 13 December 2021 in favour of Shree Cement North Private Limited. The land, spread over nearly 48 acres, was classified as a rural agricultural zone under the Master Plan for Sangrur.
The petitioners argued that a red-category industry could not legally operate in that zone. They also flagged environmental concerns, pointing out the proximity of residential houses and Vasant Valley Public School.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed their pleas in February 2024, holding that a subsequent approval granted in a Planning Board meeting on 5 January 2022 cured the defect in the CLU.
That decision was challenged before the apex court.
Court’s Observation on Master Plan
The Supreme Court examined the Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Act, 1995. It stressed that once a Master Plan is notified, it becomes binding law. Land use must strictly conform to it.
“The Master Plan is not a mere policy document,” the Bench noted. “It regulates land use in the larger public interest.”
The Court said Section 79 of the Act clearly prohibits any use of land contrary to the Master Plan. A CLU, it clarified, cannot override zoning restrictions. It only operates within the framework of the Plan.
Importantly, the High Court itself had recorded that the CLU lacked statutory backing on the date it was issued. That, the Supreme Court said, was not a minor defect but a jurisdictional error.
On Post-Facto Approval
The State argued that the Planning Board’s approval in January 2022 validated the earlier CLU.
The Bench disagreed.
It held that altering a Master Plan requires a statutory process - including public notice, objections, and gazette publication. “Minutes of a meeting,” the Court remarked, “cannot substitute a statutory amendment.”
The judges emphasised that there is no provision in the Act allowing retrospective validation of an unlawful CLU. “No amount of financial investment,” the judgment stated, “can justify continuation of an illegal project.”
Environmental and Siting Concerns
The Court also examined compliance with environmental safeguards.
Under the Environment (Protection) framework and the EIA Notification, prior environmental clearance is mandatory before starting construction. The bench noted that clearance had not yet been granted.
Further, pollution control guidelines require minimum distance from schools and residential clusters. The petitioners claimed the school and houses were within restricted limits. Authorities relied on boundary measurements and a site report.
The Court found this approach inadequate. “Preventive safeguards cannot be postponed,” it said. Verified and objective measurements were necessary, especially where a school is involved.
The judges invoked environmental principles like the precautionary approach and reiterated that public health cannot be compromised on assumptions of future compliance.
Read also:- Delhi High Court Suspends Rajpal Yadav’s Jail Term in Cheque Bounce Case After ₹1.5 Crore Payment,
The Decision
Allowing the appeals, the Supreme Court of India set aside the High Court’s February 2024 judgment.
The Court quashed:
- The CLU dated 13 December 2021
- The No Objection Certificate/Consent to Establish dated 14 December 2021, insofar as it was based on the CLU
All pending applications were disposed of. No costs were imposed.
The matter ended there - with the Court firmly reiterating that statutory planning law and environmental safeguards cannot be bypassed, even in the name of industrial development.
Case Title: Harbinder Singh Sekhon & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors.
Case No.: Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 8316 of 2024 & connected matters
Decision Date: February 3, 2026
