Summary: On February 13, 2026, the Supreme Court of India overturned a decision about changing how land could be used in Sangrur, Punjab. The change had allowed a cement grinding unit to be set up in a rural farming area. The court found this change to be against the rules and stressed the importance of following the proper steps.
The case started when Harbinder Singh Sekhon and others questioned the Punjab government's decision to let a cement plant be built near Sangrur. The land was originally meant for farming according to the Master Plan for Sangrur. The people challenging the decision, including local farmers and Vasant Valley Public School, said that the change would harm the environment and people's health.
On December 13, 2021, the Punjab Bureau of Investment Promotion allowed Shree Cement North Private Limited to use the land differently. This decision was argued against because it let industrial activities happen in a farming area.
"The permission did not have the necessary legal support as required by the PRTPD Act." - Supreme Court Judgment
The High Court agreed with the permission, saying that a later approval by the Punjab Regional and Town Planning Board on January 5, 2022, fixed the problem. This decision was taken to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court, led by Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, found that the permission was given without legal authority and couldn't be fixed by later approvals. The court stressed that changes to how land is used must follow the steps outlined in the Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Act (PRTPD Act).
"A permission must be legal when it is given. It cannot become legal because of something that happens later unless the PRTPD Act allows it."
The court also talked about environmental worries, saying that the project did not follow rules about where it could be placed, like keeping a safe distance from homes and schools. The Punjab Pollution Control Board's (PPCB) rules were not followed, causing more legal problems.
The Supreme Court's decision stresses the need to follow legal rules in land use and protecting the environment. The judgment not only canceled the permission but also rejected the No Objection Certificate related to pollution concerns.
This case shows the need to balance development and environmental care, confirming that legal steps cannot be skipped for convenience.
"Development that goes against these basic values is not allowed by the constitution."
The court's ruling serves as a reminder of the legal duties that guide changes in land use and the need to protect public health and the environment.
