Right To Enjoy Property Doesn't Include Right To Access Land Through Any Particular State Road Or Highway Route: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that the right to enjoy property under Article 300A of Constitution of India does not include any vested right to choose access through land of road belong to the State or a route forming part of a highway.

“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,” Justice Sanjeev Narula held.

The Court said that a landowner cannot insist that access be provided through a particular stretch of a land belonging to the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI), especially where the competent authority has found such access to be inconsistent with the sanctioned highway design and road safety requirements.

“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,” the judge said.

Justice Narula made the observations while dismissing a plea filed by one Sajjan Kaur, seeking to restrain NHAI from constructing a boundary wall that would block her access to a residual parcel of land adjoining the Dwarka Expressway in Village Bijwasan.

She contended that the paved road running within the right of way of the expressway was the only practical means of ingress and egress to her property.

The NHAI, on the other hand, argued that the road in question was not a service road but an internal operational road constructed exclusively to provide access to buildings housing the Advanced Traffic Management System (ATMS).

It submitted that the road was situated immediately beyond a toll plaza on an access-controlled expressway and opening it for private vehicular use would create serious traffic safety concerns.

Dismissing the plea, the Court held that the nomenclature of a road is not decisive and that its character must be ascertained from the sanctioned project documents, design features, connectivity with the main carriageway and the purpose for which it was constructed.

On examining the records, the Court found that the disputed road did not form part of the sanctioned service road network but was intended solely for ATMS operations.

“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,” the Court said.

It further noted that the fact that authorised officials and emergency vehicles used the road does not confer upon it the character of a service road available for access to adjoining private properties.

The Court also found merit in the submission of NHAI 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.

It added that such stand constitutes relevant considerations in restricting the road to vehicles connected with the operation, safety and management of the Expressway.

“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,” the Court observed.

Furthermore, on Kaur's reliance on Article 300A, the Court observed that although effective access is integral to the beneficial enjoyment of property, that right cannot be translated into a right to vehicular access through NHAI's operational infrastructure.

Vacating the interim protection earlier granted to Kaur, the Court said that the material on record did not establish that the disputed road formed part of the sanctioned service or slip road network or was intended to provide access to adjoining private properties.

“The disputed road is situated within the toll plaza and ATMS operational zone and is not designed or equipped for private vehicular access. 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 (Kaur),” the Court said.

It, however, clarified that the judgment would not affect any pending proceedings relating to compensation or any independent claim of easementary rights over adjoining private lands.

Title: SAJJAN KAUR v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR

Click here to read order