The Supreme Court has clarified that statutory Master Plan, prepared and notified under the Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Act, 1995 (PRTPD Act), is a binding legal instrument, and the land use must conform strictly to its zoning prescriptions. The Court therefore, clarified that a Change of Land Use (CLU) permission cannot be granted for a purpose that is impermissible under the operative Master Plan.
The Court said that when a statute prescribes a specific procedure for an act (such as amending a Master Plan through public notice, consideration of objections, and gazette notification), that act must be done in that manner and no other. Also, an act that is unlawful at its inception for want of jurisdiction cannot be retrospectively validated by a subsequent administrative approval, unless the statute expressly provides for such validation. Essentially, the Court stated that the financial investment made in furtherance of an unlawful permission does not create any equity or confer legitimacy upon the illegal act.
Environmental safeguards, including prior environmental clearance and siting norms, are preventive in nature and must be demonstrably complied with at the threshold stage before granting permissions, added the Court, while emphasising that compliance cannot be deferred to a later stage or be based on assumptions, especially when sensitive receptors like schools and habitations are in proximity.
Thus, the Court ruled that the right to a clean and healthy environment is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution, and a regulatory reclassification of industries that results in the dilution of preventive environmental safeguards (like siting norms) without a scientifically substantiated justification is arbitrary, unreasonable, and infringes the fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21.
The Court explained that the doctrine of sustainable development requires that when developmental activity poses a credible risk to human health, regulatory frameworks must prioritize protection, as the Indian Constitution does not permit a trade-off where civilian life and health are exposed to foreseeable harm for economic benefit.
As far as the legality of Change of Land Use (CLU) is concerned, a Two-Judge Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta observed that the site for the proposed unit fell within a rural agricultural zone under the notified Master Plan for Sangrur, where a red-category industry was not permissible. Essentially, a statutory development plan is not a mere policy statement but has binding legal force, and any development contrary to the operative plan is impermissible unless the plan is altered in the manner known to law
The Bench pointed out that the PRTPD Act does not permit land use contrary to the operative zoning merely by issuing a CLU, and the prohibition in Section 79 of the PRTPD Act is mandatory, and a CLU, granted under the framework of Sections 80 and 81, is a regulatory permission that must operate within the discipline of the Master Plan; it is not a tool to override the Plan.
The Bench went on to observe that the revision mechanism under Section 76 of the PRTPD Act expressly incorporates the procedural discipline of Sections 70 and 75, which includes public notice, invitation and consideration of objections, and final publication in the Official Gazette. Thus, the PRTPD Act does not contain any provision for retrospective validation of a jurisdictionally defective CLU through a subsequent administrative approval.
The Bench also assessed the Central Pollution Control Board’s (CPCB) rationale for reclassifying “stand-alone grinding units without CPP” to the “Orange” category based on a revised Pollution Index. It held that while such a framework can be a regulatory tool, it cannot be determinative if it leads to the dilution of preventive safeguards like siting norms.
At last, the Bench found the CPCB’s reasoning, that a stand-alone unit is less polluting than an integrated plant, to be flawed. The correct question is not one of relative pollution, but whether the unit’s pollution potential is low enough to justify relaxing safeguards near civilian habitations. The Bench therefore concluded that the reclassification failed to demonstrate that exposure risks from particulate emissions had diminished to an extent that warranted diluting precautionary standards.
Briefly, the appellants are a group of agriculturists and a public school (Vasant Valley Public School) located in Sangrur, Punjab. The primary contesting respondent, Shree Cement North Private Limited (Respondent No. 9), purchased approximately 47.82 acres of land to establish a cement grinding unit near the appellants’ agricultural lands, residences, and the school. Later, the Punjab Bureau of Investment Promotion granted a Change of Land Use (CLU) for the proposed unit, followed by a ‘consent to establish’ from the pollution angle.
The appellants challenged these approvals before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, contending that the CLU was granted in violation of the Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Act, 1995 (PRTPD Act), as the site was located in a rural agricultural zone under the Sangrur Master Plan where a red-category polluting industry was not permitted. The High Court acknowledged that the CLU lacked statutory backing on the date it was issued but held that a subsequent approval by the Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Board cured this defect. The High Court treated this approval as an amendment to the Master Plan under Section 76 of the PRTPD Act.
During the pendency of the appeals, the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) in January 2025 reclassified “stand-alone grinding units without CPP” from the “Red” to the “Orange” category. Consequently, the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF & CC) issued notifications relaxing regulatory safeguards.
Appearances:
Senior Advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Parthiv Goswami, AOR Purushottam Sharma Tripathi, along with Advocates Diksha Rai, Abhishek Tripathi, Amit, Vani Vyas, Keshav Sehgal, and Ravi Chandra Prakash, for the Appellant
AAG Rajat Bhardwaj, ASG Aishwariya Bhati, Senior Advocates Harin P Raval, Rakesh Dwivedi, Anand Chibber, and Ruchi Kohli, AORs Gurmeet Singh Makker, Sudeep Kumar, Richa Kapoor, Sriram P., Siddhant Sharma, and Apoorv Shukla, along with Advocates Shreya Bansal, Shrestha Narayan, Ishita Farsaiya, Prabhleen A. Shukla, Ayush Acharjee, Ateevraj Sandhu, Shradha Deshmukh, Rajeshwari Shankar, Sherya Jain, Riddhi Jad, Anuradha, Udipti Chopra, Aditi Rathore, Gaurav Dhama, Sushre Sirpa Sahu, and Sumit Gaur, for the Respondents
