LexHARBINDER SINGH SEKHON & ORS. versus THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2026] 3 S.C.R. 179 : 2026 INSC 159 Harbinder Singh Sekhon & Ors. v. The State of Punjab & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 2331 of 2026) 13 February 2026 [Vikram Nath* and Sandeep Mehta, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Issue arose for consideration whether change of land use-CLU dated 13.12.2021 could have been granted for the proposed unit when the land use under the Master Plan for Sangrur treated the site as falling in rural agricultural zone; whether “approval” recorded in the 43rd meeting of the Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Board dated 05.01.2022 could lawfully cure the admitted defect in the CLU and whether such approval is capable in law of operating as an alteration or amendment of the Master Plan under the PRTPD Act; whether the siting norms and environmental safeguards, including the PPCB notification dated 02.09.1998 and the relevant regulatory framework, were complied with in relation to the proximity of habitations and the school; and whether the revised industrial sector categorisation issued by CPCB in January, 2025, insofar as it reclassifies the activity described as “stand-alone grinding unit without CPP” from “Red” category to “Orange” category, together with the consequential relaxation of siting and regulatory safeguards brought about by Notifications GSR 84E dt 29.01.2025 and GSR 85E dt 30.01.2025, can be sustained in law. Headnotes† Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Act, 1995 – Legality of the change of land use-CLU – Respondent no. 9 purchased land for establishing cement related industrial unit in close proximity to the agricultural lands and residential houses of the appellants-group of agriculturists, and the School located in the immediate vicinity of the proposed site – CLU issued in favour of respondent no.9 for the proposed unit – Appellant’s case that CLU was granted in a manner not * Author 180 [2026] 3 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports contemplated by the Act, and the proposed site falls within rural agricultural zone under the Master Plan for Sangrur and that red category polluting industry could not have been permitted at the said location – Writ petitions thereagainst, dismissed by the High Court holding that as on 13.12.2021, CLU did not have statutory backing in the form contemplated by the Act, however, upheld CLU since the Regional and Town Planning and Development Board granted approval in its meeting dt 05.01.2022 and treated the said approval as curing the defect and accepted the stand that the land use permissibility stood validated thereafter – Justification: Held: CLU dated 13.12.2021 could not have been granted for the proposed unit when, under the operative Master Plan for Sangrur, the site fell in a rural agricultural zone where the proposed activity was not permissible – Permission must be lawful when it is granted – It cannot be rendered lawful by a later event unless the PRTPD Act itself so provides – “Approval” recorded on 05.01.2022 could not lawfully cure the defect in the CLU dated 13.12.2021, and it is not capable, in law, of operating as an alteration or amendment of the Master Plan under the PRTPD Act – Approach adopted by the High Court, which treated the subsequent approval as curing the illegality of the CLU, cannot be accepted when the statutory structure does not permit legality to be supplied to an act which was unlawful when done, by a later administrative approval which does not itself satisfy the mandatory requirements governing alteration or revision of the Master Plan – High Court’s approach, which proceeded on the premise that an act lacking statutory backing on the date of its issuance may nonetheless be sustained by a subsequent ex post facto approval, is inconsistent with this statutory structure – Siting norms and safeguards, including the PPCB notification dated 02.09.1998 and the regulatory discipline underlying prior environmental clearance under the EIA Notification, 2006, not complied with in the manner required by law – Proposed control systems and future-stage compliances cannot substitute the obligation to satisfy siting norms and the discipline underlying prior environmental clearance at the relevant time – Nor can subsequent material or later regulatory developments be invoked to retrospectively validate the legality of permissions already found to be without statutory foundation – Thus, judgment and order passed by the High Court set aside – Chan
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.