Access to national highways is regulated by statutory provisions requiring permission, impacting inherent property rights.

JUDGMENT

Petitioners are the owners of certain properties by the side of the National Highway. A portion of their property was acquired for widening the highway. The said properties had direct road access to the highway and continues to have such access from the National Highway. Learned counsel for the petitioners alleged that after the acquisition, respondents are initiating construction activities obstructing their access to the properties by laying interlocking bricks, thereby completely blocking the access to their properties. Immediately on realizing the attempt of the respondents, petitioners filed complaints as Ext.P3 and Ext.P4. However, no action has been taken pursuant to those complaints. The first petitioner contends that her husband is a driver and they eke out their livelihood by driving the vehicles belonging to him and therefore if the access to her property is denied, they would be seriously prejudiced.

2. A statement has been filed on behalf of the first respondent pointing out that the National Highways are controlled-access corridors and ingress and egress to such highways are governed strictly by statutory provisions, including the Control of National Highways (Land and Traffic) Act, 2002 (for short 'the Act').

3. The first respondent has also pleaded that the petitioners have no vested or indefeasible right to claim direct access from their private property to a National Highway contrary to the statutory provisions and relied upon the decision in Jain Jose v. State of Kerala and Others (2024:KER:83991). It is further pleaded that in the absence of any permission or licence obtained by the petitioners under section 28 r/w section 29 of the Act, they are not entitled to claim protection of any alleged existing access. First respondent also asserts that the petitioners had no enforceable right to insist that the National Highway be kept open for direct vehicular access to their property and that laying of interlocking blocks are part of approved highway construction and safety treatment intended to prevent unauthorised ingress and egress, apart from ensuring uniform road levels, drainage and crash safety.

4. I have heard Sri.Abdul Rasac C.H., learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Sri.Lejo Joseph George, learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent.

5. Generally a person has a right of access to a road at every point his property touches the highway. However, by statutory enactments, the said general right has been restricted and has been modified to a permissive right in certain situations. Section 28 of the Act states that no person shall have a right of access to a Highway either through any vehicle or on foot by a group of five or more persons except permitted by the Highway Administration either generally or specifically in the manner specified in Section 29 . Section 28 (2) of the Act states that the access to a Highway shall be subject to the guidelines and instructions issued by the Central Government from time to time. Under Section 29 of the Act, the Highway Administration is given the power to issue notification in the Official Gazette, to give a general permission or by a specific permission on the basis of an application in the prescribed form submitted to the Highway Administration specifying therein the means of access to which such permission relates, accompanied with such fees as may be prescribed. On such application being submitted, the Highway Administration is given the power either to grant the permission or even otherwise to reject the application. Thus, it is evident that it is only by a permission, can any person