Back
2026 Supreme(SC) 171
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, JJ.
Harbinder Singh Sekhon & ors. – Appellants
Versus
The State of Punjab & ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No of 2026 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 8316 of 2024) With Civil Appeal No of 2026 (Arising out of Slp(C) No. 8495 of 2024) And Writ Petition (C) No. 481 of 2025 And Writ Petition (C) No. 551 of 2025
Decided On : 13-02-2026
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Parthiv Goswami, Sr. Adv. Mr. Purushottam Sharma Tripathi, AOR Ms. Diksha Rai, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Tripathi, Adv. Mr. Amit, Adv. Ms. Vani Vyas, Adv. Mr. Keshav Seghal, Adv. Mr. Ravi Chandra Prakash, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Harin P Raval, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rajat Bhardwaj, A.A.G. Mr. Siddhant Sharma, AOR Ms. Shreya Bansal, Adv. Ms. Shrestha Narayan, Adv. Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Apoorv Shukla, AOR Ms. Ishita Farsaiya, Adv. Ms. Prabhleen A. Shukla, Adv. Mr. Ayush Acharjee, Adv. Mr. Anand Chibber, Sr. Adv. (VC) Mr. Apoorv Shukla, AOR Ms. Ishita Farsaiya, Adv. Ms. Prabhleen A. Shukla, Adv. Mr. Ayush Acharjee, Adv. Mr. Ateevraj Sandhu, Adv. Ms. Aishwariya Bhati, A.S.G. Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Sr.Adv. Ms. Shradha Deshmukh, Adv. Ms. Rajeshwari Shankar, Adv. Ms. Sherya Jain, Adv. Ms. Riddhi Jad, Adv. Ms. Anuradha, Adv. Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR Mr. Sriram P., AOR Ms. Richa Kapoor, AOR Ms. Udipti Chopra, Adv. Ms. Aditi Rathore, Adv. Mr. Sudeep Kumar, AOR Mr. Gaurav Dhama, Adv. Ms. Sushre Sirpa Sahu, Adv. Mr. Sumit Gaur, Adv.
The change of land use for a cement unit was ruled unlawful due to non-compliance with statutory planning frameworks, underscoring the need for adherence to zoning laws and environmental safeguards to protect public health.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 14 and 21 - Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Act, 1995 - Change of Land Use - Challenge to validity of change of land use and environmental clearance granted to a cement unit located in a rural zone - The Supreme Court ruled that the Change of Land Use (CLU) is impermissible under the Master Plan for Sangrur, and the lack of statutory backing on the date of issuance renders the CLU unlawful. The High Court's acceptance of subsequent approvals to cure the defect was held to contravene the statutory provisions of the PRTPD Act. Notably, siting and environmental safeguards were not complied with, impacting public health and safety, particularly violating Article 21 rights. (Paras 8, 36, 64)
(B) Environmental Law - Compliance with regulatory safeguards - The court emphasized that relaxations of siting norms cannot stand without satisfying statutory requirements - The CPCB's rationale for reclassifying industrial units and relaxing protections did not meet constitutional standards, demonstrating the need for a robust framework that prioritizes public health. (Paras 60, 66)
Facts of the case:
Appellants challenged the CLU for a cement plant, arguing it violated zoning laws and posed health risks to nearby residents and students resulting in High Court dismissal of petitions.
Findings of Court:
The Supreme Court found the CLU unlawful and the High Court’s reasoning flawed, resulting in a comprehensive ruling against administrative misconduct in land use decision-making.
Issues: 1) Legality of CLU in a rural agricultural zone, 2) Effectiveness of post hoc approvals, 3) Compliance with environmental siting norms.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that statutory compliance regarding land use must precede permissibility, reiterating principles of sustainable development and regulatory safeguards.
Result: Appeals allowed; CLU and related approvals quashed.
Key Points: - The Supreme Court held that a Change of Land Use (CLU) is impermissible if granted for a polluting industry in a rural agricultural zone where the Master Plan prohibits such use. (!) (!) - A subsequent approval recorded in a Board meeting cannot cure a jurisdictional defect or operate as an amendment to the Master Plan if it does not follow the statutory procedure of publication and gazette notification. (!) (!) - The Court quashed the CLU and the associated No Objection Certificate, ruling that statutory compliance regarding land use must precede permissibility. (!) (!) - The revised CPCB categorization reclassifying "stand-alone grinding units" from "Red" to "Orange" was quashed as it dilutes preventive environmental safeguards. (!) (!) - Relaxations of siting norms without satisfying statutory requirements and without a scientifically substantiated assessment violate the constitutional mandate under Articles 14 and 21. (!) (!) - The Court emphasized that the precautionary principle mandates erring on the side of protection where credible risks to life and health exist. (!) (!) - Financial investment or subsequent mitigation measures cannot justify the continuation of a project that operates in derogation of the statutory planning framework. (!) (!) - The judgment applies to any consent, approval, or permission granted solely based on the impugned reclassification or relaxed safeguards, which shall stand withdrawn. (!)
What is the legality of a Change of Land Use (CLU) granted for an industrial unit in a rural agricultural zone under the Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Act, 1995?
What is the legal effect of a subsequent approval recorded in a Board meeting on the validity of a Change of Land Use that lacks statutory backing on the date of its issuance?
What are the constitutional standards under Articles 14 and 21 regarding the reclassification of industrial units and the relaxation of environmental siting safeguards?
JUDGMENT :
VIKRAM NATH, J.
At the outset, it may be noted that the present judgment is structured in two parts. The first part addresses the civil appeals arising out of the Special Leave Petitions and examines the legality of the change of Land Use and the impugned judgment of the High Court. The second part separately considers the writ petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, which raise an independent challenge to subsequent regulatory actions taken during the pendency of the appeals.
Part I: For SLP (Civil) No. 8316 of 2024 and SLP (Civil) No. 8495 of 2024
2. Leave granted.
3. The present appeals arise from the common judgment and order dated 29.02.2024 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP No. 20134 of 2022 and CWP No. 18676 of 2022. By the impugned judgment, the High Court dismissed the writ petitions and upheld the change of Land Use dated 13.12.2021 granted in favour of “Shree Cement North Private Limited”. Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 8316 of 2024 has been filed by the writ petitioners in CWP No. 20134 of 2022. Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 8495 of 2024 has been filed by Vasant Valley Public School, which was the writ petitioner in CWP No. 18676 of 2022. For ease of reference, the parties shall be referred to as per their status in SLP (Civil) No. 8316 of 2024. Accordingly, Respondent No. 9 is Shree Cement North Private Limited, the main contesting respondent, before this Court.
4. The facts giving rise to the present appeals are as follows:
4.1. The Appellant in Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 8316 of 2024 is a group of agriculturists residing in and around Sangrur, Punjab. The Appellants state that Respondent No. 9 purchased land admeasuring about 47.82 acres for establishing a cement related industrial unit in close proximity to their agricultural lands and residential houses. The Appellant in Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 8495 of 2024 is Vasant Valley Public School. The School claims that its premises are located in the immediate vicinity of the proposed site and that the proposed activity would adversely affect the health and safety of students and staff.
4.2. On 13.12.2021, the Punjab Bureau of Investment Promotion issued a Change of Land Use1[In short “CLU”] in favour of Respondent No. 9 for the proposed unit. On 14.12.2021, consent to establish/No Objection Certificate from the pollution angle was granted under the Single Window mechanism on the basis of Punjab Pollution Control Board’s2[In short “PPCB”] consideration. The Appellants contend that the CLU was granted in a manner not contemplated by the PUNJAB REGIONAL AND TOWN PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ACT , 19953[In short “PRTPD Act”]. The Appellants also contend that the proposed site falls within a rural agricultural zone under the Master Plan for Sangrur and that a red category polluting industry could not have been permitted at the said location.
4.3. The agriculturist Appellants, therefore, instituted CWP No. 20134 of 2022 before the High Court challenging the CLU dated 13.12.2021 and the consequent approvals. Vasant Valley Public School instituted CWP No. 18676 of 2022 raising similar objections and specifically relied upon the proximity of the school and other habitations to the proposed site. During the pendency of the writ proceedings, the High Court passed an interim order dated 20.09.2022, and the interim arrangement continued till the writ petitions were finally decided.
4.4. By the common judgment and order dated 29.02.2024, the High Court dismissed both writ petitions. The High Court noted that as on 13.12.2021, the CLU did not have statutory backing in the form contemplated by the PRTPD Act. The High Court, however, upheld the CLU on the reasoning that the Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Board granted approval in its 43rd meeting dated 05.01.2022. The High Court treated the said approval as curing the defect and accepted the stand that t
