Law Updates Made Simple.

Roadblock to Access: High Court Intervenes in NHAI Infrastructure Dispute

In a recent directive, the High Court of Kerala has stepped into a simmering dispute between a property owner and the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) regarding the placement of a new Foot Over Bridge (FOB). The court has ordered authorities to formally address concerns that the bridge is inadvertently choking visibility and access to private property.

The Conflict: Bridges and Boundaries

The petitioner, Dr. Sajish Thomas Kunnel, approached the High Court seeking the dismantling and removal of a Foot Over Bridge currently under construction in front of his building. According to the petition, the structure, while intended for public utility, has created a significant hurdle for the petitioner's premises.

The core of the grievance lies in the physical placement of the FOB, which the petitioner argues severely restricts the visibility of his building to passersby and complicates accessibility for those approaching the site. With the construction reaching its final stages, the petitioner contended that his building remains incomplete, exacerbated by the ongoing infrastructural work.

Arguments at a Glance

• The Petitioner's Stance: The petitioner argued that the current placement of the bridge is essentially detrimental to the functional value of his property. By blocking access and visibility, the NHAI’s construction allegedly impinges on the legitimate usage of his building, necessitating a re-evaluation of the infrastructure’s alignment.
• The Response: The Standing Counsel for the NHAI offered submissions regarding the nature of the construction. While the court did not provide a detailed rebuttal, the judicial outcome suggests that the respondent must now engage in a formal administrative review of the ongoing project vis-à-vis these specific complaints.

The Court’s Directive

Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas, presiding over the matter, opted for an administrative resolution rather than an immediate judicial mandate to dismantle the structure. Recognizing the complexity of balancing public infrastructure projects with individual property rights, the court directed the 3rd respondent—the competent officer within the relevant authority—to review the petitioner’s representation (Ext.P9).

The court underscored the importance of procedural fairness, ordering that the petitioner be granted an opportunity to be heard before any definitive decision is reached.

Key Observations

The court articulated its reasoning for directing the review as follows:

• "Having regard to the circumstances of this case, and having considered the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent, I am of the view that the representation submitted as Ext.P9, can be directed to be considered by the competent officer."
• "Accordingly, there will be a direction to the 3rd respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P9... as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within an outer period of two months."
• "The petitioner shall be given an opportunity to be heard before a decision is taken."

Implications for the Future

This decision reflects the judiciary's preference for exhausting administrative remedies in infrastructure challenges. By mandating that the NHAI consider individual grievances before a final determination is made, the High Court ensures that executive agencies remain accountable for the impact of, and potential disruptions caused by, public works.

The NHAI now has a two-month window to synthesize the petitioner’s concerns with the technical requirements of the bridge project. For property owners facing similar challenges with public works, this case serves as an important reminder of the efficacy of the representation process under judicial supervision.