Punjab Regional Town Planning Act | Illegal 'Change Of Land Use' Permission Can't Be Post Facto Legalised : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has observed that the 'Change Of Land Use' permission granted under the Punjab Regional Town Planning and Development Act without legal authority on the date of its issuance, cannot be rendered lawful by a later, ex post facto approval, unless the statute expressly provides for such retrospective validation.

A Bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta set aside the Punjab and Haryana High Court's ruling that had validated an ex post facto approval issued by the Town and Country Planning Department, which permitted conversion of land in Sangrur district, Punjab, from a rural agricultural zone to an industrial zone for the establishment of a cement industry.

The case arose from the proposed establishment of a cement grinding unit in Sangrur district, Punjab, by Shree Cement North Private Limited on land classified as a rural agricultural zone under the operative Master Plan. Despite this, a Change of Land Use (CLU) permitting industrial use was granted on December 13, 2021, followed by environmental consent on December 14, 2021.

Local agriculturists and a nearby school challenged these approvals before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, alleging violation of the statutory Master Plan and mandatory environmental and siting norms. During the pendency of the case, an “ex post facto approval” was granted by the T&CP department on January 5, 2022, on the basis of which the High Court dismissed the petitions on February 29, 2024.

Aggrieved Appellants approached the Supreme Court, arguing that a land-use change contrary to the Master Plan was void from inception and could not be retrospectively validated, rendering all consequential environmental permissions unsustainable. They argued that the entire exercise was illegal and invalid because an amendment to the Master Plan, reflecting a 'change of land use' did not follow the mandatory procedure of publication, public objections, consideration, and gazette notification.

Finding force in the Appellant's contention, the judgment authored by Justice Nath observed:

“The approach adopted by the High Court, which treats 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. The High Court's approach, which proceeds 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.”

Since the Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Act, 1995, authorizing the 'Change Of Land Use' did not stipulate ex-post facto approval to the CLU, the Court said that subsequent regulatory developments cannot validate the legality of actions undertaken earlier.

“Nor can subsequent material or later regulatory developments be invoked to retrospectively validate the legality of permissions already found to be without statutory foundation.”, the court observed, adding that “Public health consequences, degradation of air quality, and long-term ecological damage cannot be undone by subsequent regulatory correction.”

Change In Land Use Was Done Without Any Scientific Substantiated Evidence

Furthermore, the Court noted that reclassification done in the CLU was in the absence of a proportionate and scientifically substantiated justification, rendering entire exercise to be arbitrary, as held in Vellore Citizens' Welfare Forum v. Union of India, (1996) 5 SCC 647.

“In the present case, the revised categorisation and the consequential relaxation of siting safeguards materially affect the level of protection available to civilians, including residents and school-going children, against exposure to industrial pollution. By lowering the regulatory threshold applicable to an activity with known particulate emission characteristics, the revised framework permits such units to be located closer to habitations and educational institutions. The impact is not speculative. It directly implicates public health and safety…. A regulatory downgrade that weakens environmental protection must bear a rational nexus to the object of safeguarding life and health. In the absence of a proportionate and scientifically substantiated justification, such dilution is arbitrary. Arbitrariness that impacts life and health cannot be sustained under constitutional scrutiny.”, the court observed.

Resultantly, the Court set aside the Punjab and Haryana High Court's February 2024 judgment, and invalidated the reclassification and related relaxations. Further, the Court directed that any approvals granted solely on the basis of the invalid reclassification shall stand withdrawn.

Also, the Court granted liberty to regulators to undertake a fresh, reasoned, and scientifically substantiated exercise consistent with the precautionary principle.

Cause Title: HARBINDER SINGH SEKHON & ORS. VERSUS THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. (with connected matters)

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 162

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For 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 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.