Principles of Natural Justice Are Not Optional Rituals—Layout Plans Affecting Public Rights Must Invite Public Objections: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes HSVP’s Replanning

You Cannot Convert School Land Into Nursing Homes Behind the Back of Residents—State Action Without Due Process Violates Constitutional Fairness - Punjab and Haryana High Court quashed the revised layout plan of Sector-21, Panchkula dated 25.10.2021, which had converted plots originally earmarked for a nursery and a primary school into nursing home sites, and restrained the State from confirming the e-auction conducted over those plots. The Court held that the entire action was carried out in violation of mandatory provisions of law, and without inviting objections or public participation, thus rendering it unconstitutional and void. 
The Division Bench of Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Vikas Suri ruled: “Any conversion of designated public utility sites into commercial healthcare plots, without notice to affected residents, strikes at the root of procedural fairness. Natural justice is not a ceremonial formality—it is a constitutional imperative.” 
 Petitioners Bought Homes Near a Promised School—Suddenly, It Becomes a Cluster of Private Hospitals
The petitioners, owners of 6- and 10-marla houses in Sector-21, Panchkula, had purchased properties on the assurance that plots nearby were designated for a nursery and primary school. However, in 2021, the Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran (HSVP) quietly amended the layout, reclassifying those plots as Nursing Home Site-1, 2 and 3, and auctioned them, with two being bagged by Alchemist Hospital. 
The Court noted: “The revised layout plan was effected in less than a month before e-auction commenced—revealing premeditation and collusion. The hurried timing casts serious doubt on the bona fides of the change.” 
Section 79 of HSVP Act, and Sections 4 & 5 of the 1963 Act Mandate Public Objections—Skipping That Is Not a Mere Irregularity, It’s an Illegality
The petitioners argued that under Section 79(3) of the HSVP Act, and Sections 4 and 5 of the Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas Act, 1963, publication of proposed layout changes and invitation for objections is mandatory before finalisation. The Court agreed, holding: 
“Replanning cannot be an internal office note. It must pass the test of public notice and objective justification. The affected residents were completely bypassed—this is not governance, it is administrative opacity.” 
Residents Must Have a Say—Development Plans Aren’t Private Deals
The Court cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India [JT 2018 (5) SC 383], which condemned secretive changes to development plans without public consultation. It echoed: “Master Plans and Layout Designs are not to be secretly altered to satisfy private lobbies. The people come first. They must be heard before any reclassification of public land.” 
 
“Promissory Estoppel Applies—Government Cannot Allot Plots on One 
Assumption and Then Quietly Change the Landscape” 
Justice Thakur noted that many petitioners purchased homes based on the original plan showing a school nearby, and that HSVP’s about-turn violated the principle of promissory estoppel:  “When citizens invest life savings based on official plans, the State cannot later renege and say: ‘Sorry, that’s now a hospital zone’. Trust once betrayed weakens the legitimacy of urban planning.” 
Replanning Was a Smokescreen—From School to Nursing Homes, All in One Swift Stroke 
The respondents claimed that no ‘change’ was made, but the plots were merely ‘replanned’ to enhance utility. The Court rejected this defense: “Call it conversion or replanning—if the effect is to change the use of land from education to healthcare commerce, the label doesn’t change the illegality. Substance, not semantics, determines validity.” 
Final Orders: Layout Plan Quashed, E-Auction Restrained, No Prejudice- Based Defence Allowed 
The Court ruled in favour of the petitioners, setting aside the revised layout plan and forbidding the State from proceeding with the allotment of the plots. 
It held: “No prejudice-based defence is available to the State when procedural safeguards are statutorily entrenched. The breach of natural justice cannot be condoned post facto.” 
Conclusion: This ruling underscores a fundamental principle of urban governance: you cannot repurpose public utility land into commercial sites without consulting those affected. The High Court has decisively reaffirmed that development must be lawful, not opportunistic, and that natural justice cannot be sacrificed at the altar of administrative convenience. 
As the Bench asserted: “Urban planning is not a playground for private interests—it is a solemn promise to the residents. And that promise cannot be broken silently.” 
Date of Decision: 12 March 2025