The second proviso to Rule 8(1) permits toll plazas within five kilometres when highways primarily serve local residents.

The petitioner’s land was acquired in 2022–2023 for construction, widening, maintenance and operation of NH-07 in District Fazilka. An award was passed and compensation of ₹35,43,932 was paid to her.

The Detailed Project Report (“DPR”) and Standing Finance Committee (“SFC”) Report had identified the toll plaza at kilometre 103+000.

The petitioner challenged subsequent notifications dated 30.09.2025 and 06.03.2026 issued under Sections 3A and 3D of the National Highways Act, 1956, as well as the order dated 03.03.2026 rejecting her objection to the toll plaza.

She further claimed that the unacquired remainder of her land had become landlocked and that the DPR and SFC Report were invalid because they had not been published or made available to the public.

Whether the location of the toll plaza at approximately 4.75 kilometres from the municipal limits of Fazilka violated Rule 8(1) of the National Highways Fee (Determination of Rates and Collection) Rules, 2008?

Whether the subsequent acquisition notifications were liable to be quashed because the petitioner’s remaining land had allegedly become landlocked and access had not been provided?

Whether the DPR and SFC Report were invalid because they had not been published or made available to the general public?

Whether the petitioner should be permitted to amend the writ petition to challenge the DPR and SFC Report?

The Court applied Rule 8(1) of the National Highways Fee (Determination of Rates and Collection) Rules, 2008, under which a fee plaza is ordinarily required to be established beyond ten kilometres from municipal or local town limits.

The first proviso permits location within ten kilometres, but not within five kilometres, for reasons recorded in writing by the executing authority.

The second proviso operates independently and permits a fee plaza within five kilometres, including within municipal limits, where the relevant section of the highway, bridge, bypass or tunnel is constructed primarily for the use of residents of that municipal or town area.

The Court relied on National Highways Authority of India v. Madhukar Kumar, (2022) 14 SCC 661, which held that the power under the second proviso lies with the executing authority; a formal written statement of reasons is not mandatory, but the authority must take a decision and there must be material or pleadings demonstrating application of mind.

The Court also referred to Sections 28 and 29 of the Control of National Highways (Land and Traffic) Act, 2002 as remedies concerning access to national highways.

The Court held that the second proviso to Rule 8(1), rather than the first proviso, governed the case because the toll plaza was located within five kilometres of the municipal limits.

Although no separate decision expressly invoking the second proviso was produced, the toll-plaza location had been incorporated in the DPR and approved in the SFC Report prepared by NHAI, the executing authority, in 2022–2023.

The respondents’ pleadings and their reply to the petitioner’s legal notice explained that the relevant highway section comprised a greenfield bypass with ROBs, VUPs, bridges and a trumpet interchange, intended primarily to serve residents of Fazilka District, including persons residing within five kilometres of the municipal limits.

This material was sufficient to demonstrate application of mind and substantial compliance with the second proviso, particularly in light of Madhukar Kumar.

As regards the alleged landlocking, NHAI’s undertaking to provide a 20-metre open space removed the immediate grievance.

Finally, the Court found no statutory requirement requiring publication of the DPR or SFC Report.

The Court upheld the challenged acquisition notifications and the toll-plaza location, holding that the requirements of the second proviso to Rule 8(1) were substantially satisfied by the DPR, SFC Report and the respondents’ supporting pleadings and material.

NHAI was required to provide a 20-metre open space for access to the petitioner’s remaining land; if dissatisfied, the petitioner could apply to the competent authority under law, which was directed to decide such application within three months.

The interim order dated 22.05.2026 was vacated.

The application seeking amendment to challenge the DPR and SFC Report, CM-16927-2026, was also dismissed because those documents dated from 2022 and had not been challenged at the relevant stage.