Holding

A Master Plan not yet notified has no legal effect; the existing (old) Master Plan remains in force and governs the zoning dispute.

Summary

The appellants filed a writ petition alleging that several factories in Mandi Gobindgarh were operating in a residential zone and should be closed. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that under the then‑applicable (old) Master Plan the factories were situated in an industrial area. The appellants contended that a newer Master Plan (2000‑2021) re‑designated the area as residential, and therefore the factories were illegal. The respondents argued that the new Master Plan had not been notified and therefore had no legal effect. The Supreme Court held that a Master Plan not yet notified cannot be given effect; the old Master Plan remains operative until a new plan is formally notified. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

Can a Master Plan that has not been notified be used to challenge the legality of existing industrial units?
Does the old Master Plan continue to govern zoning in the absence of a notified new Master Plan?

Legislation cited

Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981s. 21, s. 31-A

Subjects

Master PlanUrban DevelopmentZoningIndustrial AreaResidential AreaNotificationEnvironmental LawPollution ControlWrit Petition

Judgment

BHAG SINGH AND ORS. A
- -.!{ v.
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

JANUARY 5, 2007

[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.]
B

Urban Development:
~ \
Master Plan--Plea based on New Master Plan 2000-2021 that
factories/Industries in question fell within residential area and hence c
liable to be closed-Tenability of-Held, not tenable-Old Master Plan
continues to be in force-Since New Master Plan not notified, effect thereof
cannot be considered.

Appellants filed writ petition before High Court alleging that the
factories/industries in question were operating in residential areas and
D
were therefore liable to be closed. High Court dismissed the writ petition.
It is contended by the appellants that in terms of the New Master Plan 2000-
~
2021, the factories in question fall within earmarked residential area.
Respondents contested the allegation on basis of the Old Master Plan
contending that in terms thereof the factories/industries in question were E
situated in an industrial area.

Dismissing the appeal, the Court

HELD: Since the Master pl:m which forms the foundation of
F
the appellants' challenge has not yet been notified, the effect thereof
4,--
cannot be considered at this juncture. When the writ petition was filed
the old Master Plan was in force and continues to be in force. If, as and
when there is any change introduced by any subsequent Master Plan, the
~ effect thereof has to be considered in terms of the Notification of the said
Master Plan. [Para 7) [190-C, D) G

CIVIL APPELLATE illRISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1054 of2005.
':.
~

__,. From the final Judgment and Order dated 23.5.2002 of the High Court
of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in C.W.P. No. 8199/1994. H
187
188 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 1 S.C.R.

A Devendra Kumar Singh, Binay Kumar Jha and Mali Ram Bidsar Advs.
for the Appellants.

Annam D.N. Rao, Mrs. Rachana Joshi Issar and Sudhir Nandrajog
Advs. for the Respondents.

B The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ·

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. : Challenge in this appeal is to the order
passed by a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court
dismissing the Writ Petition filed by the appellants.

c 2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

The Writ Petition was filed in the year 1994, taking the stand that
industries by non official residents were operating in residential areas and,
therefore, they were liable to be closed. This. stand was resisted by the
D respondents on the ground that the factories in question were situated in
Sector 16 which in terms of the Old Master Plan was an industrial area.
Therefore, the grievances of the writ petitioners were without substance.
The High Court asked for report of the Punjab Pollution Control Board (in
short the 'Board'). The Board's report which is re-produced in the order of
the High Court reads as follows:
E
"Lastly the action taken report was filed on 8.4.2002 by the Board
showing that 61 units have complied with the provisions of the Air
(Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. Out ofremaining 27
units, 16 units have been closed down by the Board under Section
21/31-A of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981.
F
8 Units have closed down their units themselves. Remaining 3
number units have not installed Air Pollution control devices.
Thereafter 2 more units have installed Air Pollution Control Devices
and 1 unit has changed its fuel from furnace oil to Liquid Petroleum
Gas (LPG) in which Air Pollution Control Devices is not required.
G Hence, all the remaining industrial units have complied with the
provisions of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act,
1981.

Submitted for the kind information of the Hon'ble Punjab and
Haryana High Court for issue of appropriate order in the case."
H
BHAG SINGH v. STATE [PASAYAT, J.] 189

3. Taking note of the report, the High Court disposed of the Writ A
Petition specifically directing that the pollution norms and standards have
to be verified periodically and ifthere was found to be any deviation, action
was to be taken.

4. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellants submitted
that in the new Master Plan 2000-2021 the properties in question fall within B
Sector 10 which is earmarked as a residential area. Therefore, the High
Court's judgment is not in order.

5. The stand is resisted by the respondents pointing out that as yet
the new Master Plan has not become operative and has not been notified c
and, therefore, the grievances of the appellants are without any basis.

6. In this connection, the affidavit filed by the State of Punjab in
compliance of this Court's order dated 7.2.2005 is relevant. A few paragraphs
of the affidavit need to be noted.
D
"3. That Master Plan was prepared by this department which was
published in the Punjab Govt. Gazette vide Notification No.8/9/84-
IHGIV/1079 dated 18.1.1989 for public suggestions/objections.
However the same was non-statutory.
E
4. That Mandi Gobindgarh, the city in question, does not fall under
any duly notified Controlled Area, declared under the provisions of
the Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas (Restriction) of
Un-regulated Development Act, 1963, now repealed. Thus there are
no Controlled Area restrictions at Mandi Gobindgarh, in view of the p
J above legal position.
'

l 0. That the Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Department
of the Govt. of Punjab in compliance with the orders of Hon'ble
Supreme Court has also convened a meeting on 31.5.2005 to
discuss the issue with the concerned Departments viz. Department G
oflndustries and Commerce, Department of Science and Technology
and Environment, Punjab Pollution Control Board, Chief
Administrator, PUDA, Department of Local Government, Chief
Town Planner, Punjab etc. to take an overall view of the latest
position. During the course of discussion, it was unanimously H
190 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 1 S.C.R.

A agreed upon that all the Departments (Punjab Pollution Control
Board in particular) shall be more strict in initiating penal action
against the units violating environmental laws, not only against
those which are party to the present Special Leave Petition but
against all those who are violating the Master Plan. This would
ensure compliance of the orders of the. Hon'ble High Court passed
B in the present case."

7. Since the Master plan which forms the foundation of the appellants~
challenge has not yet been notified, the effect thereof cannot be considered
at this juncture. When the writ petition was filed the old Master Plan was
C in force and continues to be in force. If, as and when there is any change
introduced by any subsequent Master Plan, the effect thereof has to be
considered in terms of the Notification of the said Master Plan. That being
the position, this appeal deserves dismissal which we direct. There will be
no order as to costs.

D B.B.B. Appeal dismissed.

,
--+- ' . .
f-