Delhi High Court
Sajjan Kaur vs Union Of India And Anr on 24 July, 2026
Author: Sanjeev Narula
Bench: Sanjeev Narula
$~3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 24th July, 2026.
+ W.P.(C) 5108/2025 & CM APPL. 23357/2025
SAJJAN KAUR .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Gaurav Sarin, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Smita Maan, Mr. Vishal Maan,
Mr. Harish and Mr. Kartik Dabas,
Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Subhash Tanwar, SPC with Mr.
Mohit Tanwar and Mr. Mayank
Sehrawat, Advocates for R-1.
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate
along with Mr. Shivam Goel, Mr.
Anil Kumar Goyal, Ms. Ramya S.
Goel, Ms. Sanya Sharma and Ms.
Ishika Kanyal, Advocates for R-
2/NHAI.
Ms. Avni Singh, Panel Counsel,
GNCTD with Mr. Vaibhav Sharma,
Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV NARULA, J. (Oral):
The controversy
1. The Petitioner seeks a direction restraining the National Highways
Authority of India,1 Respondent No. 2, from constructing a boundary wall1
“NHAI”
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 5108/2025 Page 1 of 27
By:HIMANSHI CHAWLA
Signing Date:29.07.2026
11:48:38
which would close the access presently available from a paved road lying
within the right of way of the Dwarka Expressway to her residual parcel of
land in Village Bijwasan.
2. The Petitioner contends that the paved road abutting her residual
parcel is, in substance, a service road and is the only practical means of
ingress and egress to her land. NHAI disputes this premise. It maintains that
the road was neither designed nor sanctioned as a service road, but was
provided only for access to the buildings housing the Advanced Traffic
Management System.2 NHAI further points out that the road lies
immediately beyond a toll plaza on a high-speed, access-controlled
expressway. The issue, therefore, is whether the Petitioner can compel
NHAI to preserve private vehicular access through this road despite the
statutory regime governing access to National Highways, the sanctioned
project design, and the safety and operational concerns placed before the
Court.
Facts
3. The Petitioner claims ownership of agricultural land situated in
Village Bijwasan, New Delhi. A part of her holding was acquired for the
construction, maintenance, management and operation of the Dwarka
Expressway. The acquisition commenced with a notification dated 15 th May,
2017 under Section 3A of the National Highways Act, 1956, followed by a
declaration dated 20th November, 2017 under Section 3D. Award No.
1/2018/SW was made on 20th March, 2018, and possession of the acquired
land was taken thereafter.
4. The description of the residual land is not entirely consistent. The
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 5108/2025 Page 2 of 27
By:HIMANSHI CHAWLA
Signing Date:29.07.2026
11:48:38
prayer in the petition refers to land comprised in Khasra Nos. 65//5/2 and
66//1/2 min. The report furnished by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate,
Kapashera, on the basis of the latest revenue record, records the Petitioner as
owner of land in Khasra Nos. 65//5/1 min and 66//1/2 min. NHAI, however,
disputes even this factual premise. It contends that the parcel abutting its
right of way belongs to the Petitioner’s son, and that the Petitioner’s own
residual holding lies behind that parcel.
5. For the purposes of the present petition, it is unnecessary to resolve
this controversy. The petition fails even if the case is examined on the
footing most favourable to the Petitioner: that the proposed boundary wall
affects her residual holding and that she does not presently possess a legally
assured means of access through the surrounding private holdings.
6. The Petitioner’s grievance is that, before the acquisition, her
agricultural holding was approachable through an existing passage over
adjoining lands. After the Dwarka Expressway was constructed, a paved
road came to exist between the Expressway and the neighbouring private
holdings. She claims to have used this road for access to her residual land.
According to her, the proposed continuous boundary wall along the outer
edge of NHAI’s right of way would close this opening and render the parcel
inaccessible.
7. NHAI commenced construction of the boundary wall in April, 2025.
The present petition was instituted shortly thereafter, seeking a writ of
prohibition against obstruction of the Petitioner’s ingress and egress. For
ease of reference, the layout of the site and the relative location of the
Petitioner’s residual land, the Dwarka Expressway and the surrounding road
2
“ATMS”
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 5108/2025 Page 3 of 27
By:HIMANSHI CHAWLA
Signing Date:29.07.2026
11:48:38
network are reproduced below:
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 5108/2025 Page 4 of 27
By:HIMANSHI CHAWLA
Signing Date:29.07.2026
11:48:38
Proceedings before the Court
8. On 22nd April, 2025, the Court recorded NHAI’s contention that the
paved road was not a service road, but an internal road constructed to
provide access to two buildings. At that stage, however, it was not disputed
that the Petitioner was physically accessing her land through the road. NHAI
and the Irrigation and Flood Control Department of the Government of NCT
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 5108/2025 Page 5 of 27
By:HIMANSHI CHAWLA
Signing Date:29.07.2026
11:48:38
of Delhi3 were, therefore, directed to coordinate and explore a solution.
Pending such exercise, the pedestrian access then available to the Petitioner
was protected.
9. On 22nd September, 2025, the Court directed a joint inspection by
NHAI, the I&FC and the Revenue authorities. A joint inspection was
thereafter conducted and reports were placed on record.
10. The I&FC initially described the disputed road as an NHAI service
lane. It also noticed a katcha pathway proceeding towards the Bijwasan
Bund through the Petitioner’s land and other adjoining private holdings.
Since the character and ownership of this pathway could not be ascertained
during inspection, verification was sought from the Revenue authorities.
11. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kapashera, reported on 15th October,
2025 that the pathway leading towards the Bijwasan Bund does not form
part of Government or Gram Sabha land and lies within private holdings.
The adjoining parcels were stated to be owned by individuals belonging to
the same family or its branches. The I&FC consequently stated that the
Petitioner’s land was not contiguous to the Bijwasan Bund and that it could
not provide access from the Bund.
12. Arguments were heard on 13th May, 2026. During the hearing, NHAI
submitted that the proposed boundary wall formed part of the sanctioned
project. It was directed to place the relevant record before the Court.
Pursuant thereto, NHAI filed a detailed affidavit dated 22nd July, 2026, along
with the project schedules, the feasibility report, the applicable
specifications and standards, the Ministry circulars and the material relating
to the ATMS.
3
“I&FC/the Department”
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 5108/2025 Page 6 of 27
By:HIMANSHI CHAWLA
Signing Date:29.07.2026
11:48:38
Submissions of the Petitioner
13. Mr. Gaurav Sarin, Senior Counsel, appearing for the Petitioner,
submits that the right to property protected under Article 300A of the
Constitution is not confined to the bare retention of title. It includes the
ability to access, possess and reasonably enjoy the property. Having
acquired a part of the Petitioner’s holding for construction of the Dwarka
Expressway, the State cannot so develop the acquired land as to render the
residual parcel inaccessible and incapable of beneficial use.
14. He submits that the Petitioner’s land has access only from the paved
road situated between the private holdings and the Expressway. The other
sides are surrounded by separately owned private lands. Reliance is placed
upon the counter affidavit of the I&FC, which records that the Petitioner’s
land is not contiguous to the Bijwasan Bund and that the pathway leading
towards the Bund passes through private holdings. The Department has itself
stated that it cannot provide access to the Petitioner’s land from the Bund. It
is, therefore, argued that the mere physical existence of a katcha pathway
through lands belonging to other persons, even if some of them are members
of the Petitioner’s family, does not constitute a legally secured or
enforceable means of ingress and egress.
15. Mr. Sarin disputes NHAI’s description of the paved road as an
internal road meant exclusively for access to the ATMS buildings. He points
out that the expression “internal road” does not find mention in the project
schedules, the feasibility report, the IRC specifications or the circulars
produced by NHAI. The road physically abuts the private holdings, is
connected to the highway network and has been used for vehicular
movement. The I&FC has also described it as an NHAI service lane.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 5108/2025 Page 7 of 27
By:HIMANSHI CHAWLA
Signing Date:29.07.2026
11:48:38
According to the Petitioner, its legal character cannot be determined merely
by the nomenclature subsequently adopted by NHAI in its affidavits.
16. It is further submitted that NHAI’s reliance upon the typical layout of
a toll plaza does not establish the actual sanctioned configuration at the site.
The existence of the paved road is undisputed and is borne out by the
photographs, videos and joint inspection reports. The Petitioner also relies
upon visual material showing several farmhouses, hotels and other
properties along the Dwarka Expressway enjoying access through adjoining
service or slip roads. On this basis, it is contended that the Petitioner cannot
be singled out for complete denial of access.
17. He relies upon the Guidelines dated 26th June, 2020 issued by the
Ministry of Road Transport and Highways for grant of access to private
properties adjoining National Highways. Particular reliance is placed upon
the provisions which contemplate access to individual residential properties
and agricultural farms through service roads, slip roads or appropriately
designed acceleration and deceleration lanes. He submits that these
provisions demonstrate that access to an abutting private property is capable
of being regulated and engineered, and is not prohibited in absolute terms.
18. Reliance is also placed upon the circular dated 4 th February, 2019
concerning construction of boundary walls along the right of way. It is
argued that the circular itself preserves “ingress/egress points” as an
exception to the requirement of a continuous boundary wall. The circular,
therefore, cannot be construed as authorising NHAI to seal every adjoining
parcel irrespective of the availability of any other access.
19. Mr. Gaurav Sarin, Senior Counsel for the Petitioner clarifies that the
Petitioner does not seek direct access to the high-speed carriageway,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 5108/2025 Page 8 of 27
By:HIMANSHI CHAWLA
Signing Date:29.07.2026
11:48:38
exemption from payment of toll, or unrestricted use of the disputed road by
the public. The relief sought is confined to preservation of a regulated means
of reaching the Petitioner’s land. According to him, NHAI’s concerns could
be addressed by a controlled gate, restricted timings, identification of
authorised vehicles, or any other suitable engineering or regulatory
arrangement. The fact that access to the ATMS road is already available to
authorised personnel, police and emergency vehicles is relied upon to
contend that the issue is one of regulation, rather than an absolute
impossibility of access.
20. In the alternative, it is submitted that the petition may be treated as a
representation under Sections 28 and 29 of the Control of National
Highways (Land and Traffic) Act, 2002, and NHAI may be directed to pass
a reasoned decision upon the Petitioner’s request for controlled access. Mr.
Sarin submits that complete closure of the existing approach, without
securing any other lawful and enduring access to the residual parcel, would
be arbitrary and disproportionate.
Submissions of NHAI
21. Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Senior Counsel appearing for NHAI, disputes the
foundational premise of the Petitioner’s case and submits that her land
cannot be characterised as landlocked. He contends that the adjoining
parcels are owned by the Petitioner’s son and other members of her family,
and that the contiguous tract extends up to the Bijwasan Bund, a motorable
road connected to the Najafgarh Bijwasan Road.
22. NHAI further submits that the Petitioner has materially misdescribed
the residual parcel and relied upon an inaccurate site plan. According to it,
the land immediately abutting the right of way belongs to the Petitioner’s
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 5108/2025 Page 9 of 27
By:HIMANSHI CHAWLA
Signing Date:29.07.2026
11:48:38
son and not to the Petitioner. On this basis, NHAI has also raised objections
as to delay, locus standi and suppression of material facts.
23. On merits, NHAI submits that the Dwarka Expressway is an access-
controlled, high-speed corridor. The disputed road is not included in the
sanctioned schedule of service or slip roads. It has been constructed to
provide operational access to the buildings housing the ATMS, which
comprises traffic monitoring cameras, incident detection and enforcement
systems, vehicle-actuated speed displays and related highway safety
infrastructure. The facilities are also used by the Delhi Police, the Haryana
Police and emergency response vehicles.
24. NHAI relies upon IRC:SP:87-2013, under which the continuity of
service roads is ordinarily broken in the toll plaza zone and every connection
between a service road and the main carriageway must be through properly
designed entry and exit ramps, supported by acceleration and deceleration
lanes. The disputed road has none of these design features.
25. It is further submitted that the sanctioned service roads terminate at
chainage 8+700, whereas the toll plaza is situated at chainage 9+045. The
turn towards the disputed road lies immediately beyond the toll plaza. A
private vehicle seeking to enter the road would be required to move sharply
across lanes used by two-wheelers and heavy vehicles at a point where
traffic is accelerating after crossing the toll barriers. NHAI considers such
movement likely to create an accident-prone location.
26. NHAI also relies upon the circular dated 4th February, 2019, which
requires a boundary wall along the extreme outer line of the right of way of
greenfield access-controlled highways. The wall is stated to form part of the
approved project and is intended to preserve access control, prevent
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 5108/2025 Page 10 of 27
By:HIMANSHI CHAWLA
Signing Date:29.07.2026
11:48:38
encroachment and ensure highway safety.
Preliminary objections
27. NHAI’s objection of delay cannot be accepted. The Petitioner does
not challenge the acquisition undertaken in 2017 or the vesting of the
acquired land. Her immediate grievance arose when the boundary wall was
sought to be constructed across the opening in April, 2025. The petition was
filed soon thereafter.
28. There is substance in NHAI’s contention that the description of the
Petitioner’s residual holding and its depiction in the site plan do not wholly
accord with the subsequent revenue verification. The ownership and location
of the adjoining parcels, including those held by the Petitioner’s son and
other members of the family, are also relevant to her assertion that the
residual land has become landlocked.
29. A determination of title, boundaries or easementary rights over the
surrounding private holdings would require evidence and cannot
appropriately be undertaken in these proceedings. Since the petition can be
decided without resolving those questions, the Court proceeds on the
assumption stated earlier, namely, that the Petitioner’s residual parcel is
affected by the proposed wall and that she has not established a legally
enforceable right of passage through the lands leading towards the Bijwasan
Bund.
Statutory framework
30. Chapter IV of the Control of National Highways (Land and Traffic)
Act, 2002 governs access to National Highways. Section 28 begins with a
prohibition. No person has a right of access to a Highway through a vehicle,
except to the extent permitted generally or specifically by the Highway
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 5108/2025 Page 11 of 27
By:HIMANSHI CHAWLA
Signing Date:29.07.2026
11:48:38
Administration in the manner prescribed under Section 29. Access is
expressly made subject to the guidelines and instructions issued by the
Central Government. The Highway Administration may also declare a
Highway or any portion thereof to be limited for access and impose
restrictions upon movement to, from or across it.
31. Under Section 29, a person seeking specific access must apply to the
Highway Administration, which may grant permission with conditions or
reject the request. Section 30 is of particular importance. It authorises the
Highway Administration, notwithstanding any permission already granted,
to refuse, regulate or divert proposed or existing access in the interest of the
safety and convenience of traffic. Parliament has thus made traffic safety a
controlling consideration even where a permission to access the Highway
may otherwise exist.
32. The Ministry Guidelines dated 26th June, 2020, relied upon by the
Petitioner, must be read as a whole. The provisions concerning access to
private properties along ordinary National Highways or existing service
roads cannot be read in isolation. Clause 2.15 specifically provides that, in
the case of expressways and access-controlled highways, the general access-
permission guidelines do not apply. No access permission is to be granted
except at a predetermined location provided in the design of the expressway
or access-controlled highway, with proper access or service road.
33. The Petitioner’s reliance upon the general norms governing private
properties, therefore, does not advance her case. Those provisions regulate
the manner in which access may be considered where the design and
configuration of the highway permit such an arrangement. They cannot be
read as conferring a right to create a fresh access point within the toll plaza
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 5108/2025 Page 12 of 27
By:HIMANSHI CHAWLA
Signing Date:29.07.2026
11:48:38
zone of an access-controlled expressway, particularly when no such access
forms part of the sanctioned design.
34. The words “except at ingress/egress points” in the circular dated 4 th
February, 2019 also cannot be understood as preserving an opening for
every parcel adjoining the right of way. Ingress and egress points in an
access-controlled facility are those incorporated in the sanctioned design or
permitted by the Highway Administration in accordance with the governing
standards. Otherwise, the exception would defeat the very access control
which the circular seeks to secure.
The character of the disputed road
35. Considerable arguments have been addressed on whether the paved
road adjoining the private holdings is a service road or an internal road. The
nomenclature is not decisive. The character of a road forming part of a
highway project must be ascertained from the sanctioned project documents,
its design features, the manner in which it connects with the main
carriageway, and the purpose for which it has been constructed.
36. The Petitioner is correct in pointing out that the expression “internal
road” does not appear in the project schedules or the extracts of IRC:SP:87-
2013 placed on record. That circumstance, however, does not establish that
every paved road within the right of way must necessarily be regarded as a
service or slip road. The project schedules identify the service and slip roads
by their location and chainage. A road which is not included within those
identified stretches does not acquire the character of a service road merely
because it runs parallel to the Expressway or is capable of being physically
traversed.
37. The project record produced by NHAI states that the service or slip
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 5108/2025 Page 13 of 27
By:HIMANSHI CHAWLA
Signing Date:29.07.2026
11:48:38
road along the relevant stretch extends only up to chainage 8+700. Schedule
B separately identifies the portion between chainage 8+915 and chainage
9+220 as the toll plaza stretch, while NHAI has located the toll plaza at
chainage 9+045. The disputed road is not shown in the schedule of service
or slip roads at this location. Schedule D, in turn, provides that the
configuration of service roads is to be governed by the relevant provisions of
Schedule B. No deviation identifying the disputed road as an additional
service road has been shown. The relevant extracts from the project
schedules and the location of the disputed road in relation to the toll plaza
are reproduced below:
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 5108/2025 Page 14 of 27
By:HIMANSHI CHAWLA
Signing Date:29.07.2026
11:48:38
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 5108/2025 Page 15 of 27
By:HIMANSHI CHAWLA
Signing Date:29.07.2026
11:48:38
38. This also answers the Petitioner’s contention that NHAI has relied
only upon a typical layout of a toll plaza. The typical layout contained in
IRC:SP:87-2013 explains the governing design standards. NHAI’s
conclusion, however, does not rest upon that illustration alone. It is
supported by the project-specific chainages, the sanctioned schedules and
the physical configuration of the site.
39. IRC:SP:87-2013 requires service roads to connect with the main
highway only through properly designed entry and exit ramps supported by
acceleration and deceleration lanes. The prescribed minimum paved width
of a service road is seven metres, and its minimum design speed is forty
kilometres per hour. The acceleration and deceleration lanes are required to
accommodate the speed differential between local traffic and the through
traffic on the highway. Any departure from these requirements due to site
constraints is required to be recorded in Schedule D.
40. The disputed road lacks these defining design features. There is no
identified entry or exit ramp, nor any acceleration or deceleration lane,
through which private traffic may safely enter or leave the main
carriageway. Read with the sanctioned project record, which does not
identify the road as a service road intended to carry local or access traffic,
the absence of these features reinforces NHAI’s position that the road serves
a distinct operational purpose connected with the ATMS facilities.
41. NHAI has explained on affidavit that the road was constructed to
provide operational access to two buildings housing the Advanced Traffic
Management System. The ATMS comprises traffic-monitoring cameras,
video incident-detection and enforcement systems, vehicle-actuated speed
displays and related facilities. The buildings and the adjoining road are also
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 5108/2025 Page 16 of 27
By:HIMANSHI CHAWLA
Signing Date:29.07.2026
11:48:38
used by officials of the Delhi Police and Haryana Police, and for the
positioning and movement of emergency vehicles.
42. The fact that authorised officials and emergency vehicles use the road
does not confer upon it the character of a service road available for access to
adjoining private properties. Their use is confined to the management,
policing and safety of the Expressway and is integral to the operation of the
highway infrastructure.
Road safety and the proposed regulated access
43. In In Re: Phalodi Accident v. National Highways Authority of
India,4 the Supreme Court emphasised that commuter safety is an integral
aspect of Article 21 and directed NHAI to operationalise the components of
ATMS across four and six-lane highways and expressways. The decision
does not determine the present access dispute. It does, however, underscore
that the continued and effective functioning of ATMS is a matter of public
safety and not merely one of administrative convenience.
44. NHAI’s safety objection is not confined to the general proposition
that the Dwarka Expressway is access-controlled. Its affidavit identifies the
location of the toll plaza, the termination point of the sanctioned service
road, the absence of any designed merging infrastructure and the movement
which a private vehicle would be required to undertake while entering the
disputed road.
45. The disputed turn lies immediately after the toll plaza. The lanes
towards the left are used by two-wheelers and wide or heavy vehicles.
According to NHAI, a vehicle seeking to enter the disputed road would be
required to make a sharp turn across these lanes within a short distance of
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 5108/2025 Page 17 of 27
By:HIMANSHI CHAWLA
Signing Date:29.07.2026
11:48:38
emerging from the toll barrier, at a point where traffic is accelerating
towards a corridor having a permitted speed of up to 100 kilometres per
hour. The Petitioner’s own videos are relied upon by NHAI to illustrate the
movement at the site.
46. The standards prescribed in IRC:SP:87-2013 recognise the safety
implications of mixing local access traffic with high-speed through traffic.
They require local traffic to be segregated and permit its introduction into
the main carriageway only through properly designed ramps and transition
lanes. The disputed location contains no such arrangement. NHAI’s
assessment that introduction of private vehicular movement at this point
would create an unsafe traffic conflict is therefore founded upon the site
configuration and the applicable design standards, and not upon a bare or
generalised apprehension. The photographs reproduced below depict the
post-toll traffic configuration and the movement required for a vehicle
seeking to enter the disputed road.
4
2026 SCC OnLine SC 646
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 5108/2025 Page 18 of 27
By:HIMANSHI CHAWLA
Signing Date:29.07.2026
11:48:38
47. The Petitioner has not placed any technical material to displace
NHAI’s assessment that private vehicular movement cannot safely be
accommodated at the disputed point. That assessment is also supported by
the project-specific record, which shows that the location falls within the toll
plaza zone, beyond the termination of the sanctioned service road, and lacks
the entry and exit ramps or transition lanes required for local traffic. The
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 5108/2025 Page 19 of 27
By:HIMANSHI CHAWLA
Signing Date:29.07.2026
11:48:38
Court cannot, in the absence of a demonstrated infirmity in that assessment,
prescribe an alternative traffic arrangement of its own.
48. The Petitioner’s suggestion of a locked gate, restricted timings or
access confined to identified vehicles does not answer the central objection
raised by NHAI. Such measures may regulate the number and identity of
users, but they cannot alter the geometry of the toll plaza, create the requisite
entry and exit ramps or transition lanes, or eliminate the conflict between a
vehicle turning towards the disputed road and traffic accelerating from the
toll lanes. The distinction sought to be drawn between authorised and
unauthorised users also does not carry the matter further. Police personnel,
ATMS officials and emergency vehicles use the road for purposes directly
connected with the operation, safety and management of the Expressway.
Their controlled access for those functions does not establish that the road
can safely be opened for private vehicular access to adjoining land.
49. NHAI has further stated that private access may compromise the
security of the ATMS installations and interfere with the unobstructed use of
the road by police and emergency vehicles. These concerns find support in
the material on record, having regard to the dedicated operational purpose of
the road, its location within the toll plaza and ATMS zone. They therefore
constitute relevant considerations in restricting the road to vehicles
connected with the operation, safety and management of the Expressway.
50. The Petitioner has also relied upon access enjoyed by various hotels,
farmhouses and other establishments situated along the Dwarka Expressway.
These instances do not establish discriminatory treatment. No material has
been placed before the Court to show that those properties are situated
within the same toll plaza zone, obtain access through an ATMS operational
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 5108/2025 Page 20 of 27
By:HIMANSHI CHAWLA
Signing Date:29.07.2026
11:48:38
road, lack the prescribed transition facilities, or otherwise present
comparable traffic conditions. Sites which differ materially in their location,
road geometry and operational constraints cannot be regarded as similarly
situated merely because they lie along the same Expressway.
51. NHAI has also referred to the possibility of toll leakage. The
Petitioner has undertaken to comply with the applicable toll requirements
and does not seek any exemption from payment. It is, therefore, unnecessary
to rest the decision upon that apprehension. The road-safety considerations,
the sanctioned termination of the service road, and the operational
requirements of the ATMS independently sustain NHAI’s refusal.
Scope of judicial review
52. NHAI is the statutory authority entrusted with the development,
management and maintenance of National Highways. Decisions concerning
the configuration of a highway, the segregation of local and through traffic,
the location of access points and the measures necessary for road safety
involve matters of engineering assessment and operational judgment.
53. In Union of India v. Dr. Kushala Shetty,5 the Supreme Court
observed that NHAI prepares and implements highway projects after study
by experts in different fields, having regard to traffic intensity and the larger
public interest. Courts are not well suited to determine the viability or
feasibility of a particular highway project or alignment, and the scope of
judicial review in such matters is necessarily limited. Interference may
nevertheless be warranted where the action is contrary to the governing law,
tainted by mala fides, unsupported by the record, or patently arbitrary.
54. Although Kushala Shetty arose in the context of acquisition of land
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 5108/2025 Page 21 of 27
By:HIMANSHI CHAWLA
Signing Date:29.07.2026
11:48:38
and alignment of national highway, the principle it enunciates applies
equally to questions of highway design and traffic safety, which depend
upon specialised technical assessment. The Court cannot substitute its own
view of road geometry for that of the authority entrusted with designing and
operating the corridor. It must, however, examine whether the authority has
considered the actual site conditions, applied the governing standards and
reached a conclusion supported by relevant material. Judicial deference to
expertise does not foreclose review; it defines its limits.
55. Tested on that standard, NHAI’s opposition to the Petitioner’s
proposed access cannot be characterised as a bare assertion of expertise. Its
conclusion is founded upon the sanctioned project schedules, the feasibility
report, IRC:SP:87-2013, the Ministry circulars, the termination of the
designated service road before the toll plaza, the location of the disputed
turn immediately beyond the toll barriers, the absence of entry and exit
ramps or acceleration and deceleration lanes, and the operational purpose of
the road serving the ATMS facilities.
56. The absence of a separately commissioned road-safety audit for the
Petitioner’s proposed access does not, in the circumstances of the present
case, render NHAI’s conclusion arbitrary. The relevant conflict emerges
from the approved project configuration itself: the access is sought within
the toll plaza zone, beyond the point at which the sanctioned service road
terminates, and at a location where no transition infrastructure exists for the
introduction of local traffic.
57. This is, therefore, not a case in which road safety has been invoked as
a convenient or general narrative to defeat a private claim. The particular
5
(2011) 12 SCC 69
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 5108/2025 Page 22 of 27
By:HIMANSHI CHAWLA
Signing Date:29.07.2026
11:48:38
movement which gives rise to concern has been identified, its
incompatibility with the sanctioned design has been explained, and the
assessment bears a direct relationship to the statutory object of ensuring the
safety and convenience of highway traffic.
58. In the absence of any violation of the statutory framework, mala fides,
patent irrationality or contrary technical material, it would not be justified to
direct NHAI to preserve an access which the authority has found to be
inconsistent with the design and safe operation of the Expressway.
Article 300A and the claim of landlocking
59. The Petitioner’s concern that the residual parcel may be left without
legally secured access cannot be lightly dismissed. Effective access bears
directly upon the use and value of immovable property. The status report of
the I&FC also establishes that the route towards the Bijwasan Bund passes
through private holdings and that the Department itself cannot provide
access from the Bund. The Court is, therefore, unable to accept NHAI’s
submission that a legally enforceable alternative public access already stands
established merely because the intervening lands are held by the Petitioner’s
son or other members of the family.
60. That conclusion, however, does not create a corresponding right in
favour of the Petitioner over the land and operational infrastructure of
NHAI. A right to enjoy property cannot be translated into a right to select
the adjoining public land through which access must be provided,
particularly where the selected route forms part of an access-controlled
highway facility and the competent authority has found the proposed use
unsafe.
61. Article 300A protects a person against deprivation of property save by
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 5108/2025 Page 23 of 27
By:HIMANSHI CHAWLA
Signing Date:29.07.2026
11:48:38
authority of law. The acquisition itself is not under challenge. Upon
publication of the declaration under Section 3D of the National Highways
Act, the acquired land vested absolutely in the Central Government free
from all encumbrances. Section 3G expressly requires compensation to take
account of rights in the nature of easements, damage caused by severance of
the acquired land from the remaining holding, and injurious affection of
other immovable property or earnings.
62. The Petitioner had, in fact, raised before the Arbitrator the
consequences of severance and the effect of the acquisition upon the utility
of her remaining land. Those proceedings and the reliefs available to her in
respect of compensation are distinct from a claim to compel NHAI to retain
an access point contrary to the sanctioned design. The present judgment
does not express any view upon the merits of her claims in those
proceedings.
63. To the extent an easementary right over the acquired passage is
asserted, the vesting of the acquired land free from all encumbrances is
material. The Supreme Court in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Tarsem
Singh,6 has held that vesting free from all encumbrances encompasses the
extinguishment of easementary rights. The statute addresses the
consequence through compensation; it does not require the acquired corridor
to remain subject to the former mode of access.
64. The Petitioner may, independently, have remedies for establishing a
right of passage over the surrounding private holdings. Those questions
involve the title, severance, prior use and necessity pertaining to private
lands and cannot be adjudicated in this writ petition. No observation in this
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 5108/2025 Page 24 of 27
By:HIMANSHI CHAWLA
Signing Date:29.07.2026
11:48:38
judgment shall prejudice such proceedings.
65. Section 30(2) of the Control of National Highways (Land and Traffic)
Act, which requires that alternative access given upon diversion of an
existing access should not be unreasonably distant, does not assist the
Petitioner in compelling an opening at the present location. The provision
regulates an existing access to the Highway within the statutory access
regime. The record does not establish that the Petitioner ever possessed an
approved access under Sections 28 and 29 at the disputed point. The former
agricultural passage over the land subsequently acquired cannot, after
vesting under Section 3D, be equated with a sanctioned access point to the
newly constructed access-controlled Expressway.
Whether the matter should be remitted to NHAI
66. The alternative prayer for a fresh consideration by NHAI also does
not merit acceptance. A remand would be justified if the authority had failed
to examine the request, overlooked a material consideration, or disclosed no
rational basis for its conclusion. None of those deficiencies is present in the
present case.
67. NHAI has, through its counter affidavit, subsequent affidavits and
written submissions, considered the precise access sought by the Petitioner.
It has examined the project design, the chainage, the character of the road,
the applicable IRC standards, the toll plaza configuration, the ATMS
requirements, the movement of emergency vehicles and the alternatives
suggested by the Petitioner. Its conclusion is clear: private vehicular access
through the disputed road cannot safely or operationally be permitted.
68. This is also not a case where NHAI seeks to supplement the reasons
6
(2001) 8 SCC 104
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 5108/2025 Page 25 of 27
By:HIMANSHI CHAWLA
Signing Date:29.07.2026
11:48:38
contained in a pre-existing administrative order through an affidavit. No
such order is under challenge. The petition seeks an injunction against an
ongoing act, namely, the construction of the boundary wall. NHAI has
placed before the Court the contemporaneous project record and the
technical basis upon which that act is being undertaken. The legality and
rationality of the action has therefore, be examined on that record.
69. Directing NHAI to reconsider whether a gate may be provided at the
very same location would require it to repeat an exercise already undertaken
and an answer already supported by the material before the Court. Such a
direction would serve no substantive purpose.
Conclusion
70. The Court accordingly records the following conclusions:
i. The right to hold and enjoy property under Article 300A of the
Constitution does not carry with it an inherent or vested right to obtain
vehicular access through any particular adjoining land or road belonging to
the State.
ii. The material on record does not establish that the disputed road forms
part of the sanctioned service or slip road network or was intended to
provide access to adjoining private properties.
iii. Under Sections 28 to 30 of the Control of National Highways (Land
and Traffic) Act, 2002, access to a National Highway is permission-based
and remains subject to regulation, refusal or diversion in the interest of
traffic safety and convenience.
iv. Clause 2.15 of the Guidelines dated 26th June, 2020 governs access to
expressways and access-controlled highways. Access is permissible only at
predetermined locations incorporated in the approved design and supportedSignature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 5108/2025 Page 26 of 27
By:HIMANSHI CHAWLA
Signing Date:29.07.2026
11:48:38
by the requisite infrastructure.
v. The disputed road is situated within the toll plaza and ATMS
operational zone and is not designed or equipped for private vehicular
access.
vi. The proposed boundary wall forms part of the sanctioned access-
control arrangement for the Project Highway and is not shown to have been
conceived specifically to obstruct the Petitioner.
vii. The Petitioner has not established any legal entitlement to compel
NHAI to provide or preserve access through the disputed road.
viii. The absence of a legally assured alternative public access does not
create a corresponding right to obtain access through NHAI’s operational
infrastructure contrary to the sanctioned design and statutory framework.
ix. NHAI has disclosed a rational and technically supported basis for
refusing the access sought by the Petitioner. No ground for judicial
interference or for directing reconsideration of the request is made out.
71. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. The interim arrangement
protecting access shall cease to operate.
72. It is clarified that this judgment does not adjudicate upon the precise
title or boundaries of the Petitioner’s residual holding, any easementary right
claimed over the adjoining private lands, or the claims pending under
Section 3G of the National Highways Act.
73. The pending application also stands disposed of.
SANJEEV NARULA, J
JULY 24, 2026/hc
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 5108/2025 Page 27 of 27
By:HIMANSHI CHAWLA
Signing Date:29.07.2026
11:48:38
