Victory for 93-yr-old Environmentalist: SC quashes HC nod to Sangrur cement plant CU; Court Order copy attached
Babushahi Bureau
New Delhi, February 17, 2026: In a significant environmental ruling, the Supreme Court has set aside the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s order upholding the Change of Land Use (CLU) permission for a proposed cement grinding unit in Sangrur district, delivering a major victory to 93-year-old environmentalist Kewal Singh Dhillon, who had challenged the project.
A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta held that a CLU granted without statutory authority under the Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Act, 1995, cannot later be validated through an ex post facto approval unless the statute expressly permits retrospective regularisation.
The case pertained to the establishment of a cement grinding unit by Shree Cement North Private Limited on land classified as a rural agricultural zone under the Master Plan. Despite this classification, CLU permission for industrial use was granted in December 2021, followed by environmental consent the next day.
Local residents, including Dhillon, along with agriculturists and a nearby school, approached the High Court contending that the project violated the statutory Master Plan and compromised environmental safeguards.
Click link to read order copy: https://drive.google.com/file/d/11NVN1IoPLYmPxEt61cv3ZjkBBkGaHkdE/view?usp=sharing
During the pendency of the petitions, the Town and Country Planning Department issued an ex post facto approval in January 2022. Relying on this subsequent clearance, the High Court dismissed the pleas in February 2024.
However, the Supreme Court ruled that an administrative action lacking legal backing at the time of issuance cannot be cured by later approval if the governing law does not provide for retrospective validation. The Bench observed that subsequent regulatory developments cannot legitimise permissions that were unlawful when originally granted.
Expressing concern over environmental implications, the Court noted that relaxing siting norms could permit industrial units emitting particulate matter to operate closer to residential areas and educational institutions. It held that any dilution of environmental safeguards must be supported by proportionate and scientifically substantiated reasoning.
Terming arbitrary regulatory dilution affecting public health as constitutionally unsustainable, the Court invalidated the land reclassification and all consequential relaxations. It further directed that approvals granted solely on the basis of the quashed land use change would stand withdrawn.
The Bench granted liberty to authorities to undertake a fresh, reasoned exercise in accordance with environmental principles, including the precautionary approach.