Victory for 93-yr-old Environmentalist: SC quashes HC nod to Sangrur cement plant CU
Sukhminder Bhangoo/ 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 that had upheld the Change of Land Use (CLU) permission for a proposed cement plant in Sangrur district, marking a major victory for a 93-year-old environmentalist who 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 be validated later through an ex post facto approval unless the law expressly permits such retrospective regularisation.
The case concerned 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 the existing land use designation, CLU permission for industrial activity was granted in December 2021, followed by environmental consent a day later.
Local residents, including a nonagenarian environmental activist, along with agriculturists and a nearby school, challenged the approvals before the High Court, alleging that the project violated the statutory Master Plan and environmental safeguards.
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.
Also Read: A 93-year-old Sangrur petitioner, the Master plan, Shree Cement, and the Supreme Court......by KBS Sidhu
However, the Supreme Court ruled that an administrative action lacking legal backing at the time of issuance cannot be cured by a later approval if the statute does not provide for retrospective validation. The Bench observed that subsequent regulatory developments cannot legitimise permissions that were unlawful when granted.
The Court also expressed concern over the environmental implications of the reclassification, noting that the relaxation of siting norms could allow industrial units with particulate emissions to operate closer to residential areas and educational institutions. It held that any dilution of environmental safeguards must be backed by proportionate and scientifically substantiated reasoning.
Terming arbitrary regulatory dilution affecting public health as constitutionally unsustainable, the Court invalidated the 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 consistent with environmental principles, including the precautionary approach.