Right To Property Under Article 300A Constitution Does Not Include Vested Right To Vehicular Access Through Adjoining State Land: Delhi High Court

The High Court refused to direct the National Highways Authority of India to preserve access through a paved road within the right of way of the Dwarka Expressway, after finding that the disputed road formed part of the toll plaza and Advanced Traffic Management System operational zone and was not designed as a service road for adjoining private properties.

The Court was hearing a writ petition seeking to restrain NHAI from constructing a boundary wall that would close access from a paved road lying within the right of way of the Dwarka Expressway to the petitioner’s residual agricultural land in Village Bijwasan.

A Bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula, while dismissing the petition, held: “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.”

Senior Advocate Gaurav Sarin appeared for the petitioner, while Senior Advocate Sanjay Poddar appeared for NHAI.

Background

A part of the petitioner’s agricultural land was acquired for the construction, maintenance and operation of the Dwarka Expressway. Her grievance was that after the construction of the expressway, a paved road came to exist between the expressway and neighbouring private holdings, and she had been using that road to access her residual land.

NHAI disputed the claim that the road was a service road. It stated that the road was not part of the sanctioned service or slip road network and was meant to provide operational access to buildings housing the Advanced Traffic Management System, used for traffic monitoring, incident detection, enforcement systems and emergency response.

The petitioner argued that closing the opening by a boundary wall would render the residual parcel inaccessible and incapable of beneficial use. NHAI relied on the sanctioned project design, the access-controlled character of the expressway, toll plaza configuration, highway safety norms and the operational requirements of the ATMS.

Court’s Observations

The Court began by examining Chapter IV of the Control of National Highways (Land and Traffic) Act, 2002. It noted that access to a National Highway is not a matter of unrestricted right, and remains subject to statutory control.

The Court observed: “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 Administration in the manner prescribed under Section 29. Access is expressly made subject to the guidelines and instructions issued by the Central Government.”

Referring to Section 30, the Court said Parliament had made traffic safety a controlling consideration even where access permission otherwise exists.

The Court rejected the argument that every paved road running parallel to the expressway must be treated as a service road.

The Court stated: “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.”

It further noted: “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.”

The Court found that the project record did not show the disputed road as part of the sanctioned service or slip road network.

The Court accepted NHAI’s road-safety concerns. It noted that the disputed turn lay immediately after the toll plaza and lacked entry or exit ramps, acceleration lanes or deceleration lanes required for local traffic.

The Court observed: “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 Court also noted that use of the road by police, ATMS officials and emergency vehicles did not establish that it could safely be opened for private vehicular access to adjoining land.

Referring to In Re: Phalodi Accident v. National Highways Authority of India (2026), the Court noted that commuter safety and functioning of ATMS infrastructure are matters of public safety.

The Court relied on Union of India v. Dr. Kushala Shetty (2011), observing that courts are not well suited to substitute their own view on highway design, road geometry and traffic safety unless the authority’s decision is contrary to law, mala fide, unsupported by record or patently arbitrary.

The Court held: “Judicial deference to expertise does not foreclose review; it defines its limits.”

On the facts, the Court found NHAI’s refusal was supported by project schedules, IRC standards, the toll plaza location, absence of transition infrastructure and the operational role of the ATMS road.

The Court accepted that lack of legally secured access to the residual land was a serious concern and could not be lightly dismissed. However, it held that this did not create a corresponding right over NHAI’s operational infrastructure.

The Court observed: “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.”

It further noted that the acquisition itself was not under challenge and that under the National Highways Act, acquired land vests absolutely in the Central Government free from encumbrances.

Referring to State of Himachal Pradesh v. Tarsem Singh (2001), the Court observed that vesting free from encumbrances includes extinguishment of easementary rights, with the statute addressing such consequences through compensation.

The Court also refused to remit the matter to NHAI for fresh consideration, holding that NHAI had already examined the precise access sought, the project design, the road character, IRC standards, toll plaza configuration, ATMS requirements and emergency vehicle movement.

The Court held that NHAI had disclosed a rational and technically supported basis for refusing access.

Conclusion

The High Court dismissed the petition and held that the interim arrangement protecting access would cease to operate.

The Court clarified that it had not adjudicated upon the precise title or boundaries of the residual holding, any easementary right over adjoining private lands, or pending compensation claims under Section 3G of the National Highways Act.

Cause Title: Sajjan Kaur v. Union of India & Another (Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:6055)

Appearances

Petitioner: Senior Advocate Gaurav Sarin, with Advocates Smita Maan, Vishal Maan, Harish and Kartik Dabas

Respondents: Subhash Tanwar, SPC, for Union of India; Senior Advocate Sanjay Poddar, with Advocates Shivam Goel, Anil Kumar Goyal, Ramya S. Goel, Sanya Sharma and Ishika Kanyal for NHAI; Avni Singh, Panel Counsel, GNCTD

Click here to read/download Judgment