Back
Upholds Toll Plaza Near Fazilka Citing Local Use
The has dismissed a petition challenging the location of a toll plaza on National Highway-07, approximately 4.75 kilometers from the municipal limits of Fazilka. A of Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri and Justice Pravindra Singh Chauhan held that the toll plaza's siting was valid under the , as the highway section was constructed primarily for the use of local residents. The court also noted that the project was near completion and that halting it would not serve the .
The Challenge to the Toll Plaza
Dr. Ranjana Gupta, a landowner in Fazilka district, filed the under . She had earlier received of ₹35,43,932 in for land acquired in 2022–23 for widening NH-07. She did not challenge that . However, she objected to subsequent notifications dated and issued under , which acquired additional land, including two marlas of her property during earlier construction. Her primary grievance was that the toll plaza, set up at km 103+000, violated Rule 8(1) because it was within five kilometers of the municipal limits without the required decision from the .
The Legal Framework: Rule 8(1) and Its Provisos
Rule 8(1) generally bars a fee plaza within ten kilometers of municipal or town area limits. The first proviso allows the , for reasons , to locate a plaza between five and ten kilometers. The second proviso, which operates independently, permits a plaza within five kilometers—or even within municipal limits—where the highway section, bridge, bypass, or tunnel is constructed primarily for the use of residents of that municipal or town area. The in National Highways Authority of India v. Madhukar Kumar (2022) 14 SCC 661 clarified that unlike the first proviso, the second proviso does not require reasons to be , but a decision must be taken by the and supported by .
Arguments from Both Sides
Petitioner’s Submissions
, counsel for Dr. Gupta, raised four arguments:
- Violation of second proviso : The toll plaza was established at 4.75 km without any decision by the executive authority, as required under the second proviso.
- land : The remaining unacquired land of the petitioner (about 2 acres and 3 kanals) had become inaccessible.
- Lack of passage : The respondents failed to provide an adequate access road to the leftover land.
- Non-publication of DPR and SFC report : The Detailed Project Report and the report were not made available to the public, rendering them illegal.
Respondents’ Submissions
, appearing for , countered that the petition suffered from . He pointed out that the toll plaza location at km 103+000 was fixed from the very beginning in the 2022 DPR and SFC report, which the petitioner never challenged. The subsequent notifications merely rectified an inadvertent encroachment on two marlas of the petitioner's land. Relying on the Madhukar Kumar judgment, he argued that while a separate decision was not on record, the and the reply to the petitioner’s legal notice demonstrated that the highway section was primarily for local residents. He also stated, on instructions, that would provide a 20-meter open space for access to the petitioner’s remaining land.
Court’s Reasoning on the Second Proviso
The Bench analyzed the second proviso in light of the ’s ruling. It noted that the toll plaza was admittedly 4.75 km from the municipal limits, bringing it squarely within the second proviso’s ambit. The decision to locate the plaza was taken in 2022–23 through the DPR and SFC report—both prepared or approved by the (). Although no separate order recording reasons was placed on record, the court found that the material available—including ’s reply dated to the petitioner’s legal notice and the in the case—sufficiently demonstrated that the highway section, which includes a greenfield bypass with multiple underpasses, bridges, and a trumpet interchange, was intended primarily for the use of Fazilka’s residents.
The court emphasized that the second proviso does not require reasons to be , and even in the absence of a separate decision, the court can look at the material and to infer the requisite . It quoted the ’s observation: “To show , there must be material. Even in the absence of reasons, recorded as such, there must be proper with materials, unless facts are not in dispute.”
Access and Other Grievances
On the petitioner’s complaint about the remaining land becoming , the court noted ’s assurance to provide a 20-meter open space. The Bench directed that if the petitioner is still dissatisfied, she may move an application under , and the competent authority shall decide it within three months.
Regarding the two marlas of land , the court observed that the subsequent notifications had acquired that land, and an had been passed, thereby curing the earlier defect.
As for the challenge to the DPR and SFC report, the court held that there was no legal mandate requiring their publication, and the petitioner had not challenged them when the original took place. An application for amendment to challenge those documents was also dismissed as belated.
The Final Order
Dismissing the , the court vacated the dated . It concluded:
“We are of considered view that it would not be in the to halt the entire process as the project is admittedly for the development of the nation and the was made in exercise of the . We are, therefore, satisfied that based upon the material placed on record either by way of or by way of Annexure R-2/8, the requirement of the second proviso to Rule 8(1) stands with.”
The decision reinforces the principle that the second proviso to Rule 8(1) can be satisfied through and , even without a formally recorded decision, as long as the highway section is demonstrably for the benefit of local residents.
