Court says second proviso to toll rules can justify plaza within 5 km of municipal limits if project is mainly for local residents; petitioner’s access grievance also addressed.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging the location of a toll plaza on National Highway-07 near Fazilka and subsequent land acquisition notifications issued in 2025 and 2026. The court held that the toll plaza, located 4.75 km from the municipal limits, was valid under the second proviso to Rule 8(1) of the National Highways Fee (Determination of Rates and Collection) Rules, 2008.
A Division Bench of Justices Jasgurpreet Singh Puri and Pravindra Singh Chauhan observed that the second proviso operates independently of the first proviso and permits a fee plaza to be established within five kilometres of municipal limits if the highway section, bypass, bridge or tunnel is constructed primarily for the use of local residents. The court noted that unlike the first proviso, the second proviso does not require reasons to be recorded in writing. It is enough if the record and pleadings show that the executive authority applied its mind and that the project was intended for local use.
The petitioner, Dr. Ranjana Gupta, had argued that no separate decision by the executing authority existed to justify siting the toll plaza within 5 km of Fazilka’s municipal limits. She also challenged the later acquisition notifications, contending that part of her land had been used without acquisition and that her remaining land had become landlocked. She further questioned the Detailed Project Report and Standing Finance Committee report, claiming they were not published or made public.
The National Highways Authority of India opposed the petition, stating that the toll plaza was fixed at km 103+000 in the original DPR and SFC report prepared in 2022-23, long before the later acquisition. The authority also pointed to its reply to the petitioner’s legal notice, which explained that the greenfield bypass included multiple ROBs, VUPs, bridges and a trumpet interchange, all intended for the use of residents of Fazilka district, including those within 5 km of the municipal limits.
Relying on the Supreme Court’s ruling in National Highways Authority of India v. Madhukar Kumar, the High Court held that the material on record sufficiently demonstrated compliance with the second proviso. The court said that even if no separate written order recording reasons was produced, the pleadings and documents showed that the decision had been taken by the executive authority and that the toll plaza was meant to serve local residents.
On the petitioner’s grievance regarding land access, the court accepted the statement made by the NHAI that a 20-metre open space would be provided. It further observed that the petitioner could approach the competent authority under Sections 28 and 29 of the Control of National Highways (Land and Traffic) Act, 2002 if any issue still remained. The court directed that any such application be decided within three months.
The Bench also rejected the challenge to the later acquisition notifications, noting that the additional land, including two marlas on which part of the toll plaza had inadvertently been constructed, had now been duly acquired and an award had already been passed. As a result, no surviving grievance remained regarding that portion.
The court further dismissed the contention that the DPR and SFC report were invalid for want of publication, holding that no legal provision requiring such publication had been shown. It also refused to allow a late amendment application seeking to challenge those documents, observing that the petitioner had not disputed them at the relevant time and had already accepted compensation under the earlier acquisition.
Finding no ground for interference, the High Court dismissed the writ petition and vacated the interim order. The connected amendment application was also dismissed.
Bottom Line :
National Highways - Toll plaza situated within 5 kms of municipal limits - Validity under second proviso to Rule 8(1) of National Highways Fee (Determination of Rates and Collection) Rules, 2008 - Separate written reasons/order not mandatory under second proviso if material on record and pleadings show decision of executing authority and that highway facilities are primarily for use of local residents - Subsequent acquisition including inadvertently used land upheld - Grievance regarding access to remaining land redressed by direction/liberty.
Statutory provision(s): Rule 8(1), National Highways Fee (Determination of Rates and Collection) Rules, 2008, Section 3A, National Highways Act, 1956, Section 3D, National Highways Act, 1956, Sections 28 and 29, Control of National Highways (Land and Traffic) Act, 2002
Dr. Ranjana Gupta v. Union of India, (Punjab And Haryana)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2986706
