29-04-2025
40-year legal battle over Jalandhar green belts ends in defeat for industrialists
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a 40-year-old appeal by a group of industrialists challenging the State of Punjab's decision to revise the layout plan of the Jalandhar Industrial Area. The ruling, delivered by Justice Deepak Gupta, upholds the state's authority to alter the original 1951 plan—which included a 120-foot-wide road and green belts—despite objections from plaintiffs who claimed the changes infringed on their rights and harmed the environment.
The dispute goes back to 1980, when Joginder Singh and other industrialists filed a lawsuit seeking a permanent injunction to prevent the state from diverting the road and green belts for other uses, such as allotting land to a school, a rubber factory, and government departments like the police and post office. They argued they had used these areas—flanked by 80- to 85-foot green belts—for over 20 years, asserting easementary rights, and contended that the state's 1979 revision, which reduced the road width to 80 feet and eliminated the green belts, violated their interests and public health.
The industrialists claimed the original plan, prepared by the state's Industries Department, promised these amenities, and said they had built factories and homes with doors and windows facing the green belts. They further alleged the revision lacked proper government approval and public notice, calling it arbitrary and a breach of constitutional rights under Articles 14, 21, and 51(A)(g), which ensure equality, life, and environmental protection.
However, the state and other defendants—including Devi Sahai Sanatan Dharam Girls High School and Hind Rubber Factory—defended the revision as a necessary policy decision to meet evolving needs, such as accommodating essential services. They argued the plaintiffs had no legal right to the green belts, as their sale deeds contained no such promises, and said the suit—filed without challenging the revised plan—was legally flawed.
Justice Gupta's 23-page judgment, pronounced on Tuesday, rejected the plaintiffs' claims. He emphasized that no enforceable right had been established, noting: 'A perusal of the Conveyance Deed dated 08.11.1955 (Ex. DW5/1) executed by the Director of Industries, Punjab, reveals no covenant granting or assuring the plaintiff any right over the greenbelt or the 120-foot-wide road.' He further ruled the suit for injunction was not maintainable without a declaration challenging the 1979 revision, stating: 'It is a settled proposition that no relief can be granted beyond the pleadings and prayer clause.'
The court also dismissed the claim of easementary rights, observing that under the Indian Easements Act, 1882, 30 years of uninterrupted use of government land is required—not the 20 years claimed by the plaintiffs. Justice Gupta underscored the state's policy discretion, saying: 'Amendment of layout plans in larger public interest, to accommodate essential services like Police Stations, District Industries Centres, and Post Offices, constitutes a policy decision,' and found no evidence of arbitrariness.
The judge also pointed to the plaintiffs' unauthorised use of the green belts—opening doors and windows without approval—as a reason to deny equitable relief, remarking: 'Equitable relief is not available to parties who approach the Court with unclean hands.' He cited the 54-year delay and third-party rights accrued over time, concluding: 'Belated challenges are impermissible, particularly when third-party rights have accrued.'
