The Supreme Court has set aside the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s order that validated an ex-post facto approval given by the Town and Country Planning Department for conversion of agricultural land to industrial land in Sangrur district of Punjab for setting up a cement factory.“We are of the view that the CLU (Change in Land Use) dated 13.12.2021 could not have been granted for the proposed unit (cement factory) when, under the operative Master Plan for Sangrur, the site fell in a rural agricultural zone where the proposed activity was not permissible,” a Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta said.“A CLU which is unlawful on the date of its grant for want of statutory authority does not become lawful merely because a later decision purports to validate it, unless the statute expressly confers such a power of retrospective validation,” it said.Noting that a CLU was not a source of power to override the Master Plan, the Bench said that “Any development contrary to the operative plan is impermissible unless the plan itself is altered in the manner known to law.”“Once a Master Plan has come into operation under Section 70(5) of the PRTPD (the Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development) Act read with Section 75 of the PRTPD Act, the statutory scheme does not contemplate a permission regime where land use contrary to the operative zoning can be authorised merely by issuance of a CLU,” the top court said.It also quashed a CPCB notification that allowed cement factory near school, residences in Sangrur, saying it was “inconsistent with the precautionary principle, the doctrine of sustainable development, and the content of Article 21 of the Constitution.The high court had on February 29, 2024, upheld the change in land use granted on December 13, 2021, by the Punjab Bureau of Investment Promotion under the Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Act, 1995 in favour of ‘Shree Cement North Private Limited’ and dismissed petitions against it.The order came on petitions filed by Harbinder Singh Sekhon (93) and several other farmers — whose lands and houses are in close proximity to the site of the proposed cement factory — and Vasant Valley Public School —challenging the high court’s decision.“I bow my head in gratitude before the Almighty Waheguru for granting me strength, patience and faith to pursue justice at this stage of my life. Today, I express my deepest appreciation to the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, which once again stood as the ultimate guardian of the rights of ordinary citizens and farmers,” Sekhon said.For people like me — who have spent their entire lives on the soil — the Court is not merely an institution, but a beacon of hope that justice ultimately prevails irrespective of age, power or position.On behalf of the petitioners, senior counsel Mukul Rohatagi and advocate Purushottam Tripathi contended that the cement factory had been permitted to be established in violation of directions issued by the State Pollution Control Board which mandated that the minimum distance of red category cement industry must be at least 300 metres from residential areas and educational institutes. The authorities could not have allowed it in the Red category unit in the Rural Agriculture Zone of the Master Plan of Sangrur, they argued.Allowing the appeal, the top court said, “Zoning prescriptions under a Master Plan are not mere internal guidelines. They represent a considered legislative balance between competing land uses and are intended to protect public interest. Any departure which dilutes that balance must satisfy the full statutory process prescribed for altering the Plan itself. Executive convenience or post facto endorsement cannot be a substitute for statutory compliance.”It said, “No amount of financial investment can justify the continuation of an illegal project that operates in derogation of the statutory planning framework and directly impacts the rights of civilians living in the region.”The Bench said, “Where executive or regulatory action has the effect of exposing communities to foreseeable environmental harm or diluting preventive safeguards that protect life and health, judicial intervention is not an act of activism but a discharge of constitutional duty.”The top court took note of the fact that 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.“The right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India encompasses the right to a clean and healthy environment. Preventive environmental safeguards, including siting norms, are the means by which this right is protected. Where such safeguards are relaxed without a demonstrable and reasoned basis showing that the underlying risk has been materially reduced, the resulting action infringes the substantive content of Article 21,” it said.