The Punjab and Haryana High Court has refused to interfere with the siting of a toll plaza on National Highway-07, about 4.75 km from the municipal limits of Fazilka. It held that halting a highway project that is almost complete, and undertaken for the nation's development, would not serve the interest of justice.

A Division Bench of Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri and Justice Pravindra Singh Chauhan noted that the highway was nearly complete and a substantial part of the toll plaza had already been built. It observed:

"We are of considered view that it would not be in the interest of justice to halt the entire process as the project is admittedly for the development of the nation and the acquisition was made in exercise of the sovereign function of the State."

The Bench held that the second proviso to Rule 8(1) of the National Highways Fee (Determination of Rates and Collection) Rules, 2008, stood "substantially complied with". That proviso allows a fee plaza within five kilometres of municipal limits where the highway section is primarily for the use of local residents. The National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) had not placed on record any separate decision recording reasons for the location. The Bench held, however, that its pleadings and its reply to the petitioner's legal notice showed the section was primarily meant for residents of the area.

The petitioner's land was acquired in 2022–23 for widening NH-07 in Punjab's District Fazilka, and she received compensation of ₹35,43,932 in 2023. She did not dispute that acquisition.

She challenged later notifications dated 30.09.2025 and 06.03.2026, issued under Sections 3A and 3D of the National Highways Act, 1956, which acquired additional land. She also challenged an order dated 03.03.2026 of the NHAI Project Director, Bathinda, rejecting her objection to the location of the toll plaza. She alleged that part of her land had been encroached upon during the earlier construction without any award or compensation, and that the later notifications sought to cure this.

The petitioner argued, first, that the toll plaza violated the second proviso to Rule 8(1). That proviso allows a fee plaza within five kilometres of municipal limits only where a highway section, bridge, bypass or tunnel within that distance is built primarily for the use of local residents. She said the executing authority had taken no decision to that effect.

She also argued that her remaining unacquired land, about 2 acres and 3 kanals, had become landlocked with no proper access. Finally, she argued that the Detailed Project Report (DPR) and the Standing Finance Committee (SFC) report were bad in law because they were never published or made available to the public.

NHAI, represented by Senior Advocate Chetan Mittal, argued that the petitioner had misstated and concealed facts. She had claimed that a December 2022 draft report placed the toll plaza more than ten kilometres from Fazilka. NHAI said the toll plaza had been fixed at km 103+000 from the start, as shown in the 2022 DPR and the SFC report dated 03.03.2023, and the petitioner had not objected when her land was first acquired.

NHAI also pointed to its reply dated 04.08.2025 to her legal notice. That reply explained that the highway section within five kilometres of the municipal limits included a greenfield bypass with two ROBs, several underpasses, three minor bridges and a trumpet interchange, all meant to serve residents of Fazilka.

Relying on National Highways Authority of India v. Madhukar Kumar ((2022) 14 SCC 661), NHAI argued that the second proviso does not require reasons to be recorded. It said that the absence of a separate recorded decision is not fatal where the material on record and the pleadings show application of mind.

NHAI admitted that some toll plaza rooms had inadvertently been built on two marlas of the petitioner's land that had not been acquired. It said this was rectified by including that land in the later notifications, under which an award had been passed. It also stated, on instructions, that it would provide a 20-metre open space for access to the petitioner's remaining land.

The Bench explained that Rule 8(1) bars a fee plaza within ten kilometres of municipal or town area limits. The first proviso allows the executing authority, for reasons recorded in writing, to locate one between five and ten kilometres, but never within five. The second proviso operates independently. It permits a fee plaza within municipal limits, or within five kilometres of them, where the relevant highway section is primarily for the use of the residents of that area.

The Bench held that only the second proviso applied here, since the toll plaza is admittedly 4.75 km from the municipal limits. The location was decided in 2022–23 through the DPR and the SFC report, both prepared or approved by NHAI as the executing authority, and the acquisition that followed was never challenged. It noted that no separate decision recording reasons was on record. However, NHAI's reply to the legal notice and its pleadings set out that the section was primarily for local residents.

The Bench also took into account that the highway was nearly complete and a substantial part of the toll plaza had been built. It held that halting a project undertaken for national development, in exercise of the State's sovereign function, would not be in the interest of justice.

It held that the access grievance did not survive, given NHAI's statement on the 20-metre open space. It said that any remaining grievance could be raised under Sections 28 and 29 of the Control of National Highways (Land and Traffic) Act, 2002, and directed the authority to decide any such application within three months. The grievance about the two marlas also did not survive, since that land had now been acquired and an award passed.

The writ petition was dismissed and the interim order dated 22.05.2026 was vacated.

Case Title: Dr. Ranjana Gupta v. Union of India and Others

Counsel: P.S. Khurana, Sukhmandeep Kaur and Anurag Doomra for the petitioner; Chetan Mittal, Senior Advocate, with Mayank Aggarwal, Shashwat Sharma and Adhiraj Sood for respondents No. 2 and 3 (NHAI);

Avichal Sharma for respondent No. 4

Click here to read order