# Harbinder Singh Sekhon & Ors v. The State of Punjab & Ors

- **Citation:** 2026 INSC 159
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2026-02-13
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 2331 of 2026
- **Bench:** Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/harbinder-singh-sekhon-ors-v-the-state-of-punjab-ors-39007
- **Pages:** 41

## Headnote

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

## Text

_Characters 0–39,976 of 89,883. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39976 for what follows._

[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 - Change of Land Use granted
in favour of respondent no.9 quashed. [Paras 9-36]
[2026] 3 S.C.R.
181
Harbinder Singh Sekhon & Ors. v. The State of Punjab & Ors.
Environmental law - Reclassification from "Red" category to
"Orange" category - Revised industrial sector categorisation
issued by the CPCB in January, 2025 - Reclassification
of "stand-alone grinding unit without CPP (Captive Power
Plant) from "Red" category to "Orange" category 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 - Sustainability:
Held: Revised categorisation and the consequential regulatory
relaxations elevate a generic classification methodology to a
position where it overrides preventive environmental safeguards,
without adequate regard to exposure risks, local conditions, or
the constitutional obligation to protect life and health - Such an
approach is inconsistent with the precautionary principle, the
doctrine of sustainable development, and the content of Art. 21 -
Revised categorisation and 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, revised framework permits such units to be located
closer to habitations and educational institutions - Impact is not
speculative, it directly implicates public health and safety - Thus,
the present intervention warranted because the impugned actions
have the effect of lowering the constitutional minimum of protection
guaranteed to affected communities - Revised industrial sector
categorisation issued by the CPCB in January, 2025, insofar as it
reclassifies the activity described as a "stand-alone grinding unit
without CPP" from the "Red" category to the "Orange" category,
cannot be sustained in law - Said reclassification, read together
with the consequential relaxation of siting and regulatory safeguards
brought about by Notifications GSR 84E and GSR 85E has the effect
of diluting preventive environmental protections in a manner that
infringes the constitutional guarantees u/Arts.14 and 21 - Revised
industrial sector categorisation issued by the CPCB in January,
2025 quashed insofar as it reclassifies the activity described as a
"stand-alone grinding unit without CPP" from the "Red" category
to the "Orange" category - Notifications GSR 84E and GSR 85E
quashed insofar as they relax the applicable siting and regulatory
safeguards for such units on the basis of the said reclassification -
Any consent, approval or permission that has been granted solely
182
[2026] 3 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
on the basis of the said reclassification of "stand-alone grinding
unit without CPP" as an "Orange" category activity or on the basis
of the relaxed siting and regulatory safeguards introduced by
Notifications GSR 84E and GSR 85E will not survive and stands
withdrawn - CPCB or MoEF & CC not precluded from undertaking
fresh exercise of classification or regulatory review in accordance
with law - Constitution of India - Arts.14 and 21. [Paras 65-68]
Environmental law - Environmental protection and
development - Constitutional balance - Explanation:
Held: Economic development and industrial growth are legitimate
and important objectives of the State - However, in a constitutional
framework founded on the rule of law, development is not an
abstract or absolute goal - It is conditioned by the non-derogable
obligation to protect life, health, and environmental integrity -
Development that undermines these foundational values ceases
to be constitutionally permissible development - Doctrine of
sustainable development is not a slogan of compromise but a
principle of prioritisation - It requires that when developmental
activity poses a credible risk to human health or environmental
safety, regulatory frameworks must err on the side of protection -
Constitution does not permit a trade-off where civilian life and health
are exposed to foreseeable harm on the assumption that economic
benefit or industrial facilitation justifies such exposure - Arts.14 and
21 do not tolerate a regulatory calculus that treats environmental
safety as negotiable - If regulatory dilution were to be accepted,
it would mark a fundamental shift in environmental governance -
Sector-level reclassification, divorced from exposure realities and
local sensitivities, would become a ready instrument to justify siting
of polluting activities in close proximity to habitations, schools,
and other sensitive receptors - It would operate as a precedent,
enabling progressive erosion of preventive safeguards across
regions, with cumulative and irreversible consequences - Law does
not permit environmental protection to be weakened incrementally
until harm becomes inevitable - Environmental harm, once caused,
is often irreversible or incapable of full remediation - Public health
consequences, degradation of air quality, and long-term ecological
damage cannot be undone by subsequent regulatory correction -
Thus, environmental regulation is designed to be preventive rather
than reactive - Regulatory framework that allows risk to materialise
first and seeks to address consequences later is fundamentally
[2026] 3 S.C.R.
183
Harbinder Singh Sekhon & Ors. v. The State of Punjab & Ors.
incompatible with constitutional environmental jurisprudence - This
Court does not ordinarily interfere with technical classifications or
policy determinations made by expert bodies, however, judicial
restraint cannot extend to abdication - Where regulatory action
results in lowering of the constitutional minimum of protection
guaranteed to citizens, particularly in matters affecting life and
health, judicial intervention becomes a constitutional obligation.
[Paras 60-64]
Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Act,
1995 - ss.70, 75, 76, 79-81 - Preparation and approval of Master
Plans - Master Plan, its binding force, and the procedure for
alteration/revision - Control of development and "change of
land use" permissions - Explained. [Paras 7.1-7.10]
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 - Environment (Protection)
Rules, 1986 - EIA Notification dated 14.09.2006 - Environmental
clearance and siting safeguards - Explained. [Paras 7.11-7.13]
Case Law Cited
K. Ramadas Shenoy v. Town Municipal Council, Udipi [1975] 1
SCR 680 : (1974) 2 SCC 506; Bangalore Medical Trust v. B.S.
Muddappa [1991] 3 SCR 102 : (1991) 4 SCC 54; Vellore Citizens'
Welfare Forum v. Union of India [1996] Supp. 5 SCR 241 : (1996) 5
SCC 647; M.C. Mehta v. Union of India [1996] Supp. 7 SCR 465 :
(1997) 3 SCC 715; Hospitality Assn. of Mudumalai v. In Defence
of Environment & Animals [2020] 10 SCR 273 : (2020) 10 SCC
589; M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Shriram - Oleum Gas) [1987]
1 SCR 819 : (1987) 1 SCC 395; Indian Council for Enviro-Legal
Action v. Union of India [1996] 2 SCR 503 : (1996) 3 SCC 212;
A.P. Pollution Control Board v. Prof. M.V. Nayudu [1999] 1 SCR
235 : (1999) 2 SCC 718 - referred to.
List of Acts
Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Act,
1995; Constitution of India; Environment (Protection) Act, 1986;
Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986.
List of Keywords
Land use under the Master Plan for Sangrur; Rural agricultural zone;
Approval recorded in 43rd meeting of the Punjab Regional and Town
184
[2026] 3 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Planning and Development Board dated 05.01.2022; Alteration or
amendment of the Master Plan; Siting norms and environmental
safeguards; PPCB notification dated 02.09.1998; Regulatory
framework; Revised industrial sector categorisation; Stand-alone
grinding unit without CPP; "Red" category; "Orange" category;
Relaxation of siting and regulatory safeguards; Notifications GSR
84E dated 29.01.2025; GSR 85E dated 30.01.2025; Principles of
environmental jurisprudence; Change of land use; Cement related
industrial unit; Close proximity to agricultural lands and residential
houses; Change of land use-CLU dated 13.12.2021; Environmental
clearance under EIA Notification, 2006; Preparation and approval
of Master Plans; Master Plan, its binding force, and procedure for
alteration/revision; Control of development and change of land
use permissions; Environmental clearance and siting safeguards;
Reclassification of "stand-alone grinding unit without CPP" from
"Red" category to "Orange" category; Precautionary principle;
Doctrine of sustainable development; Environmental protection
and development.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE/ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.
2331 of 2026
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.02.2024 of the High Court
of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP No. 20134 of 2022
With
SLP (C) No. 8495 of 2024 and Writ Petition (C) No(s). 481 and
551 of 2025
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Petitioner(s):
Mukul Rohatgi, Parthiv Goswami, Sr. Advs., Purushottam Sharma
Tripathi, Ms. Diksha Rai, Abhishek Tripathi, Amit, Ms. Vani Vyas,
Keshav Seghal, Ravi Chandra Prakash.
Advs. for the Respondent(s):
Ms. Aishwariya Bhati, A.S.G., Rajat Bhardwaj, A.A.G., Harin P
Raval, Rakesh Dwivedi, Anand Chibber, Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Sr.
Advs., Siddhant Sharma, Ms. Shreya Bansal, Ms. Shrestha
Narayan, Apoorv Shukla, Ms. Ishita Farsaiya, Ms. Prabhleen
[2026] 3 S.C.R.
185
Harbinder Singh Sekhon & Ors. v. The State of Punjab & Ors.
A. Shukla, Ayush Acharjee, Apoorv Shukla, Ms. Ishita Farsaiya,
Ms. Prabhleen A. Shukla, Ayush Acharjee, Ateevraj Sandhu,
Ms. Shradha Deshmukh, Ms. Rajeshwari Shankar, Ms. Sherya Jain,
Ms. Riddhi Jad, Ms. Anuradha, Gurmeet Singh Makker, Sriram P.,
Ms. Richa Kapoor, Ms. Udipti Chopra, Ms. Aditi Rathore, Sudeep
Kumar, Gaurav Dhama, Ms. Sushre Sirpa Sahu, Sumit Gaur.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Vikram Nath, J.
1.
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.
186
[2026] 3 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
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 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 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. 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.
1
In short "CLU"
2
In short "PPCB"
3
In short "PRTPD Act"
[2026] 3 S.C.R.
187
Harbinder Singh Sekhon & Ors. v. The State of Punjab & Ors.
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 the land use permissibility stood validated thereafter.
4.5. The High Court also proceeded on the basis that the decision
taken by the Planning Board on 05.01.2022 was relatable to the
power of amendment of the Master Plan. The High Court relied
upon Section 76 of the PRTPD Act and held that the approval
recorded in the 43rd meeting dated 05.01.2022 could operate to
support the CLU and to sustain the proposed industrial activity.
The High Court further proceeded on the premise that the
competent authorities had considered the relevant siting aspects
and that the CLU itself contained conditions and restrictions.
The High Court observed that if the conditions stipulated in the
CLU were violated, the affected persons would be at liberty to
pursue appropriate remedies.
5.
Aggrieved by the dismissal of their writ petitions and by the upholding
of the CLU dated 13.12.2021, the Appellants have preferred the
present civil appeals.
6.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, and we have gone
through the comprehensive material on record. In our considered
opinion, the following questions arise for determination in the present
appeals:
I.
Whether the 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 a rural agricultural zone.
II.
Whether the "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.
188
[2026] 3 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
III.
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
process adopted by the authorities satisfies the requirements
of the prevailing legal norms.
7.
It is apparent that the controversy before us turns principally on
the statutory scheme governing the Master Plan and control of
development under the PRTPD Act; and the environmental and siting
safeguards applicable to a cement grinding unit as in the present case.
A.
PRTPD Act, the Master Plan, its binding force, and the
procedure for alteration/revision
7.1. Chapter X of the PRTPD Act deals with 'Preparation and
Approval of Master Plans.' Under the same, Section 70 of the
PRTPD Act lays down the foundational statutory scheme for
the preparation, approval, and legal operation of a Master Plan.
The same has been reproduced hereunder:
"70. Outline Master Plan. - (1) As soon as may be
after the declaration of a planning area and after the
designation of a Planning Agency for that area, the
Designated Planning Agency shall, not later than
one year after such declaration or within such time
as [the State Government may, from time to time,
extend, prepare and submit to the State Government
for its approval a plan (hereinafter called the "Master
Plan")] for the planning area or any of its part and
the Master Plan so prepared shall -
(a) indicate broadly the manner in which the land in
the area should be used;
(b) allocate areas or zones of land for use for different
purposes;
(c) indicate, define and provide the existing and
proposed highways, roads, major streets and other
lines of communication;
[(cc) indicate areas covered under heritage site and
the manner in which protection, preservation and
[2026] 3 S.C.R.
189
Harbinder Singh Sekhon & Ors. v. The State of Punjab & Ors.
conservation of such site including its regulation and
control of development, which is either affecting the
heritage site or its vicinity, shall be carried out.]
(d) include regulations (hereinafter called "Zoning
Regulations") to regulate within each zone the
location, height, number of storeys and size of
buildings and other structures, open spaces and the
use of buildings, structures and land.
(2) Subject to the provisions of the rules made under
this Act for regulating the form and contents of the
Master Plan, any such plan shall include such maps
and such descriptive matters as may be necessary to
explain and illustrate the proposals in the Master Plan.
(3) [As soon as after the Master Plan has been
prepared under sub - section (1) ,by the Designated
Planning Agency, the State Government, not later
than such time, as may be prescribed, shall direct
the Designated Planning Agency to publish the
existing land use plan and master plan and the
place or places, where the copies of the same may
be inspected, for inviting objections in writing from
any person with respect to the existing land use plan
and master plan within a period of thirty days from
the date of publication.]
(4) [The State Government, after considering the
objections and in consultation with the Board, may,
direct the Designated Planning Agency to modify the
Master Plan or approve it as such.]
(5) [The Designated Planning Agency, after approval
of the State Government, shall publish the final
Master Plan in the Official Gazette, after carrying
out the modifications if any, under intimation to the
State Government within a period of thirty days
from the date of according approval by the State
Government.]"
7.2. The provision makes it clear that the Master Plan is not a
mere policy document or an internal administrative guideline.
190
[2026] 3 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
It is a statutory instrument which governs how land in the
planning area is to be used and regulated. The Act places
the primary responsibility for preparing the Master Plan upon
the Designated Planning Agency, which is required to prepare
the plan and submit it to the State Government for approval.
The contents of the Master Plan, as reflected in the statutory
scheme, include the identification and allocation of land into
different zones for specified purposes and the regulatory norms
that will govern development and land use within those zones.
Equally significant is the procedure that Section 70 mandates
before a Master Plan can acquire enforceable effect. The Act
requires that the proposed Master Plan be brought into the
public domain, that the public be afforded an opportunity to
submit objections and suggestions within the prescribed period,
and that such objections and suggestions be considered by
the Designated Planning Agency before the plan is placed for
approval. This is not a procedural formality. It is a statutory
safeguard intended to ensure transparency, participatory
planning, and reasoned decision making, particularly because
zoning and land use decisions have a direct bearing on property
rights, local habitations, public amenities, and environmental
and health concerns.
7.3. The Act then ties enforceability to publication in the Official
Gazette. In other words, the Master Plan becomes operational,
and thereby binding for land use regulation, only upon its
publication in the Official Gazette in the manner contemplated
by the statute. Section 75 of the PRTPD Act reinforces this
principle by reiterating that the Master Plan comes into
operation from the date of such publication, and the same
reads as follows:
"75. [Coming into operation of Master Plan,- The
Master Plan come into operation from the date of
publication, referred in sub-section(5) of section 70.]"
The combined statutory scheme indicates that once the Master
Plan is published and comes into operation, it binds both the
authorities and the public, and land use permissibility is to be
determined with reference to its zoning prescriptions unless the
statute is duly followed to alter or revise the plan.
[2026] 3 S.C.R.
191
Harbinder Singh Sekhon & Ors. v. The State of Punjab & Ors.
7.4. The same statutory discipline governs review and revision.
Section 76 of the PRTPD Act contemplates periodic review of
the Master Plan, and it permits revision where the statutory
authority considers it necessary. Section 76 reads as follows:
"76(1) At any after time after the date on which the
Master Plan for an area comes into operation, and
atleast once after every ten years, after that date, the
Designated Planning Agency shall after carrying out
such fresh surveys as may be considered necessary
or as directed by the [State Government], prepare
and submit to the Board, a Master Plan after making
alterations or additions as it considers necessary.
(2) The provisions of *[Sections 70 and 75] shall
mutatis mutandis as for as may be possible, apply
to the Master Plan submitted under sub-section (1)."
However, the Act does not treat review as a mechanism
by which land use norms can be altered informally or on
a case by case basis. The provision expressly applies the
publication, objection, consideration, and gazette publication
requirements to a revised Master Plan as well. This legislative
design ensures that revision of the Master Plan, even when
undertaken as part of a periodic review cycle, remains subject
to the same safeguards of notice, participation, and formal
publication which give the Master Plan its legal force in the
first place.
7.5. The Act also provides for the making of minor changes, but
even that power is not arbitrary. Where changes are proposed
to the Master Plan, including changes described as minor, the
statutory scheme requires that the State Government's direction
and the fact of change be brought to the notice of the public in
the manner contemplated by the Act. The underlying principle
is that a change in zoning or land use permissibility cannot
rest only upon internal file notings, minutes, or administrative
approvals. Where the change alters the operative land use
framework that binds the public and the authorities, the statute
insists upon transparency and public notice so that the Master
Plan continues to remain a legally certain and publicly knowable
instrument of planning regulation.
192
[2026] 3 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
B.
Control of development and "change of land use"
permissions
7.6. Once a Master Plan has come into operation in the manner
contemplated by the PRTPD Act, the statutory command is
that land use and development within the planning area must
conform to the zoning and regulatory prescriptions of the Plan.
Section 79 to 81 in Chapter XI of the PRTPD Act provides for
the same and has been reproduced hereunder:
79. After the coming into operation of any Master Plan
in any area, no person shall use or permit to be used
any land or carry out any development in that area
otherwise than in conformity with such Master Plan:
Provided that the Competent Authority may allow the
continuance of any use of any land, for a period not
exceeding ten year, upon such terms and conditions
as may be provided by regulations made in this behalf
for the purpose and to the extent, for and to which it
was being used on the date on which such a Master
Plan came into operation.
80. After coming into operation of any Master Plan
in any area and subject to the other provisions of
this Act, no development in respect of, or change of
use of, any land shall be undertaken or carried out,
in that area -
(a) without obtaining the permission in writing as
provided for hereafter; and
(b) without obtaining a certificate from the Competent
Authority certifying that the development charge or
betterment charge as leviable under this Act has been
paid or that no such charges are leviable:
[Provided that except in the case of development,
affecting heritage site or its vicinity, no such
permission shall be necessary-]
(i) for operational constructions and constructions in
the area comprised in the abadi-deh of any village
falling inside its Lal Lakir or Phirni;
[2026] 3 S.C.R.
193
Harbinder Singh Sekhon & Ors. v. The State of Punjab & Ors.
(ii) for carrying out such works for the maintenance,
improvement or other alteration of any building which
affect only its interior or which do not materially affect
the external appearance of the building ;
(iii) [....] for the carrying out by the Central Government
or the State Government or any local authority of,-
(a) any work required for the maintenance or
improvement of a high way, road or public street,
being work carried out on land within the boundaries
of such highway, road or public street;
(b) any work for the purpose of inspecting, repairing
or renewing any drains, sewers, mains, pipes, cables
or other apparatus including the breaking open of any
street or other land for that purpose ;
(iv) for the excavations (including wells and tubewells)
made in the ordinary course of agricultural operation
or for such constructions which are made for
agricultural purposes subservient to agriculture :
Provided that such excavation or constructions are
situated in the areas in which agriculture is permitted
land use as per the Master Plan ;
(v) for the construction of unmetalled roads intended
to give access to land solely meant for agricultural
purpose.
81.(1) Any person intending to carry out any
development in respect of, or a change of use of any
land or intending to sub-divide his plot or to layout a
private street shall make an application in writing to
the Competent Authority for permission in such form
and containing such particulars and accompanied by
such documents and plans as may be prescribed.
(2)(a) In the case of a Department of the State
Government or the Central Government or a local
authority intending to carry out any development
in respect of, or, change of use of, any land, the
concerned Department or the local authority, as the
194
[2026] 3 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
case may be, shall notify in writing to the Competent
Authority of its intention to do so giving full particulars
thereof and accompanied by such documents and
plans as may be prescribed, at least, two months prior
to the undertaking of such development or change,
as the case may be.
(b) Where the Competent Authority has raised
any objection in respect of the conformity or the
proposed development either to any Master Plan
under preparation or to any rules in force at that
time, or due to any other material consideration, the
Department of the State Government or the Central
Government or the local authority, as the case may
be, shall either make necessary modifications in the
proposals for such development or change of use to
meet the objections raised by the Competent Authority
or submit *[to the State Government the proposal for
such development or change of use together with
the objections raised by the Competent Authority
for decision.]
(c) The **[State Government] on receipt of such
proposal together with the objections of the Competent
Authority shall either approve the proposals with or
without modifications or direct the Department of
the State Government or the Central Government
or the local authority, as the case may be, to make
such modifications in the proposals as it considers
necessary in the circumstances.
(3) Every application under sub-section (1) shall be
accompanied by such fee as may be prescribed:
Provided that no fee shall be payable in the case of
an application made by a Department of the State
Government or the Central Government.
(4) On an application having being duly made under
sub-section (1) and on payment of the development
charge or betterment charges if any, as may be
assessed under Chapter XIII, the Competent Authority
may,-
[2026] 3 S.C.R.
195
Harbinder Singh Sekhon & Ors. v. The State of Punjab & Ors.
(a) pass an order -
(i) granting permission unconditionally ; or
(ii) granting permission subject to such conditions as
it may think necessary to impose ; or
(iii) refusing permission ;
(b) without prejudice to the generality of clause (a)
impose conditions -
(i) to the effect that the permission granted is
only for a specified period and after the expiry
of that period, the land shall be restored to its
previous condition or the use of the land so
permitted shall be discontinued; or
(ii) for regulating the development or use of any
land under control of the applicant or for the
carrying out of works on any such land as may
appear to the Competent Authority expedient.
(5) The Competent Authority in considering the
application for permission shall ensure that it is in
conformity with the provisions of the Master Plan
prepared or under preparation under this Act and
where the development or change or use of any land
is likely in the opinion of the Competent Authority to
interfere with the operation of the Master Plan or to
be prejudicial to planned development, or any plan
for development of the Authority, the Competent
Authority may refuse such permission.
(6) Where permission is granted subject to conditions
or is refused, the grounds of imposing such conditions
or such refusal shall be recorded in the order and
such order shall be communicated to the applicant
in the prescribed manner.
(7) *[If the Competent Authority does not communicate
its decision to grant or refuse permission to the
applicant within a period of sixty days from the
date of receipt of his application in case other
than the heritage site, and within a period of one
196
[2026] 3 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
hundred twenty days in the case of heritage site and
development affecting such site, or within a period of
sixty days from the date of receipt of reply from the
applicant in respect of any requisition made by the
Competent Authority, whichever is later, then such
permission shall be deemed to have been granted
to the applicant on the date immediately following
the date of expiry of the later date without prejudice
to the provisions of this Act, rules and regulations
made thereunder:
Provided that any development carried out in
pursuance of such deemed permission, which is in
contravention of the provisions of the Act, rules and
regulations made thereunder, shall be deemed to
be an unauthorised development for the purposes
of sections 86, 87, 88, 89 and 90.]"
7.7.
Section 79 is a prohibition in mandatory terms. It does not
leave the matter to administrative discretion on a case to
case basis. It interdicts the use of land and the carrying out
of development in a manner inconsistent with the operative
Master Plan. The legislative intent is to ensure certainty,
uniformity, and enforceability in planning control, so that the
zoning framework is not diluted by ad hoc departures that
would defeat the Plan's public purpose.
7.8.
Section 80 then provides the complementary statutory control.
Even where a proposed activity is otherwise permissible under
the Plan, the statute mandates that development or change
of use can be undertaken only upon written permission of the
competent authority. This written permission is not conceived
as a substitute for, or an override of, the Master Plan. It is a
regulatory permission which must operate within the discipline
of the Plan and the statute. In other words, Section 80 does not
create a untrammelled executive power to authorise land use
contrary to the Master Plan. It creates a permission regime which
presupposes conformity with the planning framework, and which
is intended to regulate the manner, conditions, and safeguards
subject to which permissible development may proceed.
7.9.
Section 81 sets out the structured decision-making process for
grant or refusal of permission. The provision contemplates an
[2026] 3 S.C.R.
197
Harbinder Singh Sekhon & Ors. v. The State of Punjab & Ors.
application by the person intending to carry out development,
a time bound decision by the competent authority, the power to
impose conditions while granting permission, and an obligation
to record reasons where permission is refused. The scheme is
designed to ensure that permissions are granted on relevant
considerations, that the decision is not arbitrary, and that the
affected party is informed of the basis of refusal. The deemed
permission clause is also part of this discipline. It operates
as a statutory consequence where the authority fails to act
within the prescribed period. It does not dispense with the
substantive requirements of conformity with the Master Plan
or compliance with other applicable laws.
7.10. The appellate remedy is similarly part of the statutory
architecture. It provides a supervisory forum within the
executive framework, but it does not dilute the binding force
of the Master Plan or the mandatory nature of the statutory
controls in Sections 79 and 80.
C.
Environmental clearance and siting safeguards
7.11. Environmental clearance and siting safeguards stand on a
distinct but overlapping legal plane. Under the Environment
(Protection) Act, 1986 and the Environment (Protection) Rules,
1986, the EIA Notification dated 14.09.2006 (hereinafter referred
to as the EIA Notification, 2006) is a delegated legislation
which creates a regime of prior environmental clearance for
specified projects and activities. The requirement of prior
environmental clearance is triggered before commencement
of construction activity or preparation of land at the site. The
statutory design is preventive. It ensures that environmental
impacts, mitigation measures, and site-specific concerns are
assessed at a stage when the project can still be meaningfully
evaluated, conditioned, modified, or declined.
7.12. The EIA Notification, 2006 also prescribes a stage wise process
which includes screening, scoping, public consultation, and
appraisal. These stages are not interchangeable.