State lacks a constitutional or statutory obligation to provide private vehicular access through highway operational infrastructure.

The Petitioner owns agricultural land in Village Bijwasan, a portion of which was acquired in 2017 for the Dwarka Expressway

Following construction, the Petitioner used a paved road within the National Highways Authority of India’s (NHAI) "right of way" to access her residual land

In April 2025, NHAI began constructing a boundary wall that would block this access

The Petitioner contended that her land was otherwise landlocked

NHAI countered that the road was not a public service road but an internal operational path for the Advanced Traffic Management System (ATMS), situated in a high-speed, access-controlled zone immediately following a toll plaza

1. Whether the Petitioner can compel NHAI to provide vehicular access through a road designed for operational/ATMS purposes under the statutory regime of the National Highways Act

2. Whether the denial of access to a residual land parcel constitutes a violation of the right to property under Article 300A of the Constitution

The court applied Sections 28, 29, and 30 of the Control of National Highways (Land and Traffic) Act, 2002, which mandate that access to a Highway is permission-based and subject to regulation or refusal in the interest of safety and convenience

It relied on IRC:SP:87-2013, which sets design standards for service roads and entry/exit ramps

Regarding Article 300A, the court followed State of Himachal Pradesh v. Tarsem Singh, holding that land vesting in the State "free from all encumbrances" extinguishes prior easementary rights

Union of India v. Dr. Kushala Shetty established that judicial review of technical highway alignments and safety designs is limited unless the action is patently arbitrary

The court found that the disputed road was not a sanctioned service road as per the project schedules but a dedicated path for ATMS facilities and emergency vehicles

Applying the safety standards of IRC:SP:87-2013, the court noted the site lacked the necessary acceleration/deceleration lanes; allowing private vehicles to turn sharply across post-toll traffic lanes would create "accident-prone locations"

The court rejected the Petitioner's Article 300A argument, reasoning that while property rights are protected, they do not grant an inherent right to select a specific access point through state-owned, access-controlled infrastructure

The court deferred to NHAI’s technical assessment that private access would compromise the security of ATMS installations and highway safety

Even if the land were effectively landlocked, the court held the remedy lies in seeking compensation for "injurious affection" under Section 3G of the National Highways Act or pursuing private easementary claims against neighbors, not in forcing a breach of highway design

The court ruled that highway access is a regulated privilege, not a vested right, and NHAI provided a rational, technically supported basis for the restriction based on traffic safety and the sanctioned project design

The interim protection for access was vacated