IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established is the application of the common law principle granting landowners the right of access to a highway at any point their land touches the highway, balanced with public interest and safety concerns.

JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioner is the owner in possession of 1 Acre 40 cents of property abutting Punaloor-Muvattupuzha State Highway which runs through the eastern boundary of the petitioner's property.

2. The case of the petitioner is that on realignment of the original road for avoiding the curve in front of the petitioner’s property, the road was pushed towards the eastern side and the land through which the original road was passing is kept unused; and that the petitioner has road frontage extensively on its eastern side to the existing State Highway through the said unused land. The grievance of the petitioner is that the 2nd and 3rd respondents are attempting to utilise the said unused land in front of her property for constructing a Hotel-Cum-Public-Latrine-Complex. According to the petitioner if such a complex is constructed, her access to the Highway will be lost which is clearly impermissible in law as she has got the right of access on all points of her property touch the highway in view of the settled position of law. When the petitioner and her neighbours came to know that the 2nd and 3rd respondent are attempting to construct the said Hotel-Cum-Public-Latrine-Complex in the said unused land, the husband of the petitioner, along with other persons submitted representations stating their grievances and objections before the 2nd and 3rd respondents, they are proceeding to construct the said Hotel-Cum-Public-Latrine-Complex without considering those representations.

3. The petitioner filed this writ petition seeking direction to the respondents 2 to 4 not to proceed with the construction of the said Hotel-Cum-Public-Latrine-Complex before taking any decision on the representation submitted and in such a way denying the petitioner's right to have access to the State Highway from her property.

4. When the 3rd respondent Grama Panchayat filed Counter Affidavit producing Ext.R3(h) Order rejecting the representation, the petitioner amended the writ petition and included the challenge against Ext.R3(h) and a declaratory relief that she has every right to use the old road portion for her ingress and egress to enter into the State Highway formed after widening, from her property abutting to the road and also that the 3rd respondent has no right to obstruct or to interfere the right of the petitioner to have free ingress and egress to the road from every inch of her property.

5. The 3rd respondent filed a Counter Affidavit dated 07/01/2021 opposing the prayers in the Writ Petition. After amendment of the Writ Petition the 3rd respondent filed an Additional Counter affidavit dated 06/10/2021 to the amended writ petition. The sum and substance of the contentions of the 3rd respondent is that the 3rd respondent proposes to construct a Community Sanitation Complex as a part of the project ‘take a break’ by which the State Government has decided to construct 2165 quality Community Sanitation Complex throughout the state, on the sides of National Highways and State Highways for the purpose of providing refreshment options to the travelers; that Suchitwa Mission is the nodal agency for implementing the Project through Local Self Government Institutions; that the 3rd respondent was asked to construct Community Sanitation Complex within its limits as Punaloor-Muvattupuzha State Highway is passing through it; that there are heavy traffic through the Highway especially during Sabarimala season; that the 3rd respondent identified the strip of land between the petitioner’s property and the State Highway as a suitable place for the purpose; that it is the only available suitable land available within the limits of the 3rd respondent to implement the Project; that the Community Sanitation Complex with provision for snacks and beverages will be helpful for large number of Sabarimala pilgrims and other travelers through the road; that the petitioner’s property is not abutting the highway; the access of the petitioner’s property to the highway will