HARBINDER SINGH SEKHON & ORS. versus THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. (13/02/2026) — Supreme Court headnote

AI-generated headnote. Verify against the judgment before relying on it. Paragraph numbers refer to the judgment.

Summary

The Court quashed a change of land use (CLU) granted for a cement grinding unit on land zoned rural agricultural under the Sangrur Master Plan. A CLU cannot override an operative Master Plan, and a later ex post facto Planning Board approval cannot cure that defect or amend the Plan without the statutory procedure; siting norms had also not been shown to be met before the pollution NOC was granted. In connected Article 32 petitions, it quashed the CPCB's 2025 reclassification of stand-alone grinding units from Red to Orange, and the related relaxation of siting safeguards, as violating Articles 14 and 21.

Issues

Whether the CLU dated 13.12.2021 could be granted when the site fell in a rural agricultural zone of the Master Plan for Sangrur where the proposed use was impermissible.
Whether the ex post facto approval in the 43rd meeting of the Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Board on 05.01.2022 could cure the defect in the CLU or operate as an amendment of the Master Plan.
Whether the siting norms (including the PPCB notification dated 02.09.1998) and the requirement of prior environmental clearance were complied with.
Whether the CPCB's January 2025 reclassification of 'stand-alone grinding unit without CPP' from Red to Orange, and the relaxation of siting safeguards by Notifications GSR 84E and GSR 85E of 2025, are sustainable under Articles 14 and 21.

Provisions considered

Sections 70 and 75, Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Act, 1995A Master Plan is a statutory instrument that comes into operation on gazette publication after public objections are invited and considered; once operative it binds authorities and the public. (¶¶ 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, 11, 19)
Section 76, Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Act, 1995Review and revision of the Master Plan attract the publication, objection and gazette requirements of Sections 70 and 75; the section only initiates a revisionary process and does not allow informal or case-by-case alteration through meeting minutes. (¶¶ 4.5, 7.4, 19, 20)
Sections 79, 80 and 81, Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Act, 1995Section 79 prohibits use or development not in conformity with the operative Master Plan; Sections 80 and 81 create a permission regime that presupposes conformity and cannot authorise use contrary to the Plan. Conditions in a CLU cannot supply jurisdiction. (¶¶ 7.6, 7.7, 7.8, 7.9, 11, 13, 14)
EIA Notification dated 14.09.2006, Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986Requires prior environmental clearance before construction or land preparation, through screening, scoping, public consultation and appraisal; Category B appraisal at State level does not dilute this or the separate siting obligations. (¶¶ 7.11, 7.12, 26, 27, 30)
Notification dated 02.09.1998 (siting norms for cement plants and grinding units), Punjab Pollution Control Board notificationPrescribes minimum distances, including 300 metres from an educational institution and from a cluster of 15 pucca houses, and a green belt; compliance must be demonstrated by verified measurements from identified emission sources before consent is granted. (¶¶ 7.13, 28, 29, 31)
Articles 14 and 21, Constitution of IndiaThe right to a clean and healthy environment under Article 21 is protected by preventive siting safeguards; relaxing them without reasoned, scientific justification is arbitrary under Article 14 and infringes Article 21. (¶¶ 41, 53, 58, 59, 65)
GSR 84E dated 29.01.2025 and GSR 85E dated 30.01.2025 (Air and Water consent guidelines, 2025), Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change notificationsQuashed insofar as they relax siting and regulatory safeguards for stand-alone grinding units on the basis of the Red-to-Orange reclassification. (¶¶ 39, 52, 65, 66)

Held

Once a Master Plan is operative, Section 79 mandatorily prohibits non-conforming use, and a CLU under Sections 80 and 81 is a regulatory permission within the Plan, not a power to override it. The CLU, granted for a red-category unit in a rural agricultural zone where the use was impermissible, lacked statutory backing on the day it was issued, a defect going to jurisdiction. (¶¶ 9, 11, 12, 13, 17)
Conditions attached to a CLU, the promise of industrial development and employment, single-window processing, and the plea of alternative remedy or disputed facts cannot validate a land use impermissible under the operative Master Plan. (¶¶ 14, 15, 16)
A change in land-use permissibility can be made only by the procedure in Sections 70, 75 and 76, including publication, objections and gazette notification. Minutes of a Planning Board meeting granting ex post facto approval do not amend the Master Plan, and absent an express statutory power of retrospective validation, an unlawful CLU cannot be cured by later approval. The High Court erred in holding otherwise. (¶¶ 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25)
Investment made under an unlawful permission cannot legitimise it or justify continuing a project that breaches the planning framework. (¶ 24)
Siting norms and prior environmental clearance are preventive safeguards that must be satisfied at the threshold. Measuring distance from the boundary shown by the project proponent, assuming the distance would be greater from the pollution source, and deferring verification to the consent-to-operate stage did not show compliance where a school and habitations lay near the margin; Category B classification and mitigation measures cannot substitute for siting standards. (¶¶ 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33)
Courts ordinarily defer to expert regulatory classification, but that restraint gives way where a classification directly and foreseeably dilutes preventive safeguards protecting life and health. In such cases judicial review is a constitutional duty under Articles 14 and 21, guided by the precautionary principle and sustainable development. (¶¶ 54, 55, 56, 59, 64)
The CPCB's reclassification of stand-alone grinding units without CPP from Red to Orange rested on generic sector-level comparison with integrated plants and assumed cleaner technology. It did not show on objective, disclosed material that dust and particulate exposure risks had fallen enough to justify allowing such units closer to homes and schools, and was therefore arbitrary and inconsistent with Article 21. (¶¶ 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 57, 58, 65)

Result

Civil appeals allowed; High Court judgment dated 29.02.2024 set aside; CLU dated 13.12.2021 quashed and the NOC/consent to establish dated 14.12.2021, insofar as based on it, set aside; no costs. Writ petitions allowed in part: the CPCB's January 2025 reclassification of 'stand-alone grinding unit without CPP' and Notifications GSR 84E and GSR 85E of 2025, to the extent of the relaxation, quashed; consents granted solely on that basis stand withdrawn; CPCB and MoEF&CC free to undertake a fresh, reasoned and scientifically substantiated review.