Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, SANDEEP SHAH, JJ.
Himmat Singh Gehlot S/o Shri Satyanarayan Gehlot - Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary – Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 24826 of 2025
Decided On : 05-02-2026
Parties Involved: Petitioner is Himmat Singh Gehlot. Respondents include State of Rajasthan (Chief Secretary, Home Department, Mines and Geology, Legal Metrology), Director of Mines and Geology, Legal Metrology Department Jodhpur, District Collector Jodhpur, Commissioner of Police Jodhpur, Jodhpur Development Authority, NHAI Regional Officer and Project Director. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
Counsel: For petitioner: Mr. Rajesh Joshi (Sr. Adv.) assisted by Mr. Rishi Soni & Ms. Kamini Joshi. For respondents: Mr. Mahaveer Bishnoi (AAG), Dr. Sachin Acharya (Sr. Adv.) assisted by Mr. Chayan Bothra, Mr. Deepak Chandak (AAAG), Mr. Ankur Mathur, Mr. Rajat Dave. (!)
Recall of Previous Order: Court recalls order dated 22.01.2026 noting communications from PWD, JDA, NHAI, Police, and a fatal accident near the Dharmkanta, expressing concern over breaches in highway restricted zones affecting road safety. (!)
Extension Granted: Application for relocation of Dharmkanta granted 30 days additional time; compliance date modified to 06.03.2026 for voluntary removal/relocation. (!)
Wider Issue Identified: Encroachments within ROW of National Highways across Rajasthan districts pose threat to life and safety, not limited to the specific Dharmkanta. (!)
Highway Demarcations Explained: Technical demarcations include centreline, road land boundary (about 40m from centreline, overall 80m), building line, and control line (about 75m from centreline, overall 150m). ROW is operational corridor including carriageway, shoulders, etc., for safety, visibility, and future use. (!) (!) (!)
Legal Effect of Demarcations: Occupation within ROW/road land boundary impermissible; no construction within building line; regulated construction only within control line with permission. (!)
Constitutional Obligation: Protection of life under Article 21 requires safe movement on highways; occupations impairing sight distance, access, or traffic are constitutional wrongs. (!)
Road Safety Data: Judicial notice of 2023 data: 4,80,583 accidents, 1,72,890 fatalities; 30% fatalities on National Highways (2% of road length); high speeds and unregulated access contribute; economic burden ~3% GDP. (!) (!) (!)
Black Spots and Audits: Over 8,500 black spots identified nationally; need for audits, GIS mapping; instant case illustrates how encroachments create black spots. (!)
Encroachment Data in Rajasthan: 103 religious, 881 residential, 1,232 commercial encroachments (hotels, dhabas) within ROW across districts. (!)
IRC Norms: Reference to Table-2 on building/control lines for rural/urban areas. (!) (!) (!)
Systemic Issues: Administrative fragmentation leads to permissions/licences without highway norm checks, creating hazards; no estoppel against statute/public safety. (!) (!) (!)
Religious Structures: No immunity; must be removed if in ROW. (!)
Directions for Removal: All encroachments in ROW (103 religious, 881 residential, 1,232 commercial) to be removed/relocated within 2 months by Respondents 1-3 with District Collector/Police assistance; strict legal process with demarcation, notice, hearing. (!) (!) (!) (!)
Status Report: State to file district-wise report within 2 months on encroachments in ROW/control line of National/State Highways, action taken, rules under Motor Vehicles Act Sections 138(1A)/210D, supported by GIS/photographs. (!) (!)
Legal Assistance: Respondents may seek help from Mr. Deepak Chandak (AAAG). (!)
Structured Directions: | Category | Key Directives | |----------|----------------| | Declaration | Occupations in ROW/road land boundary per se illegal, no regularisation. (!) (!) | | Supervision | District Highway Safety Task Force within 7 days (District Admin, Police, NHAI, PWD, local bodies); minutes maintained. (!) (!) (!) | | Demarcation | With videography, GPS, GIS; Encroachment Register with photos/geo-coordinates; prioritise black spots. (!) (!) (!) (!) | | Regulatory | No new/renewed permissions without NHAI/PWD clearance; review existing within 15 days; install markers/boards post-removal; police protection/prevention. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) | | Accountability | Officer responsibilities in report; compliance affidavits; timeline for rules; periodic audits. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) |
Next Hearing: Matter listed on 10.03.2026 for compliance monitoring. (!)
Judges: Hon’ble Dr. Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Shah. (!)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. recognition of road safety concerns. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. technical demarcations affecting encroachments. (Para 4) |
| 3. constitutional obligations regarding public safety. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. enforceability of statutory duties on road safety. (Para 7) |
| 5. systemic issues causing highway safety violations. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 6. state’s obligation to remove encroachments. (Para 12 , 13 , 15) |
ORDER :
1. This Court recalls its detailed order dated 22.01.2026, wherein judicial notice was taken of the communications issued by the PWD, JDA, NHAI and the Police authorities, as well as of the subsequent unfortunate accident in close proximity to the Dharmkanta in question, resulting in the loss of four lives. This Court had recorded its concern regarding breach of the norms which prohibit construction or activity within the restricted Highway zones measured from the centreline, and had noted that such infractions have a direct and dangerous bearing on road safety.
2. Dr. Sachin Acharya, learned counsel appearing for the applicant, submits that relocation of Dharmkanta/weighbridge is underway and seeks extension of time. The application (Inward No. 02/2026) is disposed of by granting 30 days’ additional time. The date 06.02.2026 stands modified to 06.03.2026 for voluntary removal/relocation strictly in accordance with law.
3. During the course of the present hearing, the material placed before this Court reveals that the issue is not confined to the solitary Dharmkanta, but discloses a wider and disturbing pattern of occupation within the Right of Way (ROW) of National Highways across several districts of the State, thereby posing a continuing threat to human life and public safety.
4. Upon query by this Court, Mr. Ankur Mathur, learned counsel for National Highways Authority of India, explained the technical demarcations recognised under the National Highways Act, 1956, the Control of National Highways (Land and Traffic) Act, 2002 and the standards prescribed by the Indian Roads Congress (IRC), namely the centreline, road land boundary, building line and control line. These demarcations are measured from the centreline of the Highway. Ordinarily, the road land boundary/building line lies at a distance of about 40 metres from the centreline on either side, giving an overall width of about 80 metres, and beyond the same lies the control line at a distance of about 75 metres from the centreline on either side, giving an overall width of about 150 metres.
4.1. Learned counsel further submits that the Right of Way (ROW) represents the operational corridor within the road land boundary, comprising the carriageway, shoulders, verges, drains, safety margins, sight distance and land reserved for emergency use and future widening. These zones are not mere technical classifications but are founded upon scientifically evolved safety principles to preserve visibility, regulate access points, ensure emergency manoeuvrability and provide space for future infrastructure expansion. Any occupation within these zones necessarily interferes with these safety parameters. He has also placed on record a chart delineating these parameters, which is reproduced hereunder:
4.2. Upon considering the explanation so furnished, this Court understands the legal effect of these demarcations to be that any occupation within the Right of Way or road land boundary is impermissible and liable to removal; no construction is permissible within the building line; and only regulated construction with due statutory permission is permissible within the control line.
5. In view of the settled position of law, this Court takes notice that the protection of life under Article 21 of the Constitution encompasses the State’s positive obligation to ensure safe movement on public roads and highways. Occupations that impair sight distance, create uncontrolled access points, or interfere with traffic movements are thus not merely statutory infractions but constitutional wrongs impinging upon the
Encroachments within the Right of Way (ROW) of National Highways are illegal, threatening public safety and requiring immediate removal and regulatory compliance under constitutional and statutory ma....
The State has a positive obligation under Article 21 of the Constitution to ensure road safety and protect human life, necessitating immediate and systematic reforms.
(1) Safety of National Highways – Removal of unauthorised occupation – It is obligation of Central Government to maintain National Highways – Maintenance of highways includes obligation to keep them ....
Public properties such as footpaths, streets, and pavements are intended for the convenience of the general public and cannot be used for private purposes. The competent authority has a duty to promp....
Ministry of Road Transport and Highways has already issued the Motor Vehicles (Driving) Regulations, 2017 which should be implemented by the State Governments and Union Territories strictly.
Any failure on part of the designated authorities, contractor, consultant or concessionaire in maintaining the safety standards of public roads will attract the penal consequences provided under Sect....
Unauthorized occupants of highway land, as defined under Section 2(m) of the Control and National Highways (Land and Traffic) Act, 2002, are subject to eviction under Sections 26 and 27 of the Act, f....
The court mandates strict compliance with safety regulations prohibiting liquor shops within 500 meters of highways, reiterating that public safety must take precedence over revenue considerations.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
