Adjoining Landowner's Right Of Access To National Highway Is Subject To Statutory Regulations; Disputed Facts Can't Be Decided Under Art 226: Kerala High Court

"Section 29 of the Control of National Highways (Land and Traffic) Act, 2002 provides that even access to the National Highway is subject to strict compliance with the statutory provisions and that there is no unhindered right of access to the National Highway," Kerala High Court, in a significant ruling, held that an owner of land adjoining a National Highway does not possess an absolute or unhindered right of access to the highway from all points of their property.

A bench of Dr. Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Preeta A.K. observed that such access is strictly governed by the Control of National Highways (Land and Traffic) Act, 2002, and that the High Court cannot adjudicate on disputed factual claims regarding property access under its writ jurisdiction.

The appellant, John Mathai, challenged the National Highway Authority of India’s (NHAI) decision to construct a static weigh bridge in front of his commercial property in Kumbalam Village. He contended that the construction would block his frontage, reduce the property’s commercial value, and infringe upon his rights under Article 19(1)(g) and Article 300A of the Constitution of India. The appeal was filed after a Single Judge dismissed his writ petition on the grounds that the case involved disputed questions of fact.

The primary legal questions before the court were whether an adjoining landowner has a fundamental right to access a National Highway from every point where the land meets the road. The court was also called upon to determine if the High Court, exercising power under Article 226, could resolve factual disputes regarding the lie of the land and the existence of service roads when such facts are contested.

Statutory Regulation Of Highway Access Under the 2002 Act

The Court examined the interplay between the rights of private landowners and the statutory powers of the NHAI. It noted that the NHAI resisted the plea by relying on Section 29 of the Control of National Highways (Land and Traffic) Act, 2002. This provision refutes the notion that an adjoining owner has a perpetual right to access the highway at any point of their choosing.

The bench highlighted that the construction of the weigh bridge was a policy decision aimed at authenticating the net weight of vehicles, as directed by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways. The court noted that as long as the construction is carried out on NHAI’s own property and in accordance with prescribed guidelines, a claim of infringement of property rights under Article 300A is difficult to sustain.

Adjoining Landowners Do Not Have Unhindered Access

In addressing the appellant's primary grievance, the court observed that the existence of a service road significantly alters the legal standing of the landowner's claim to "direct" access. The court perused the Advocate Commissioner’s report, which indicated that while the property faces the Highway, it is situated on the side of a service road.

"Section 29 of the Control of National Highways (Land and Traffic) Act, 2002... provides that even access to the National Highway is subject to strict compliance with the statutory provisions and that there is no unhindered right of access."

Disputed Questions Of Fact Bar Writ Jurisdiction

The Court emphasized that the writ court is not the appropriate forum to resolve intense factual disagreements. The appellant had vehemently contended that the Commission Report was incorrect and that his property directly faced the Highway without an intervening service road. However, the court noted that since the Commissioner was appointed at the appellant's own instance, the facts stated therein carry significant weight.

The bench held that when the very "lie of the property" and the existence of access-negating infrastructure are in dispute, the High Court must exercise restraint. The judges noted that the adjudication of such a lis requires a detailed determination of factual aspects which cannot be undertaken in summary proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Constitutional Principles Yield To Disputed Basic Facts

The Court further clarified that even when a "rights-based approach" is anchored on constitutional principles like the right to property or the right to carry on business, these arguments cannot be addressed if the foundational facts are not settled. Since the appellant failed to prove an undisputed physical right of access that was being blocked, the constitutional challenge remained theoretical.

"Even though the learned counsel for the appellant has raised a rights-based approach anchoring on constitutional principles, we have not addressed the said contentions, as in this case, the basic facts themselves are in dispute."

The Court concluded that the Single Judge was correct in dismissing the writ petition. It reiterated that the High Court would not be justified in interfering where the basic facts regarding the construction and its impact on the property are themselves a matter of contention.

In view of these observations, the Division Bench found no merit in the appeal. The court affirmed that the NHAI’s statutory mandate to regulate traffic and maintain highway safety through measures like weigh bridges outweighs the commercial interests of adjoining landowners, especially when ingress and egress are not completely obstructed.

Date of Decision: 30 June 2026