Allowed¶58

M/S Legacy Global Projects Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India

Karnataka HC8 Jul 2026WP/17185/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: NHAI access permission; service road; Residential Properties (RPs); Other Properties (OPs); Ministry of Road Transport and Highways access guidelines (Annexure-E); National Highway No.7 (NH-7); Navayuga Devanahalli Tollway Private Limited; National Highway Authority of India; quashing of demand/communication dated 25.02.2017; joint development agreement 09.02.2011; Sy.No.50/4 Allalasandra Village; Legacy Global Projects Pvt Ltd; High Court of Karnataka; M.G.S. Kamal, J; WP No. 17185 of 2017 (GM-RES); Articles 226 and 227 Constitution of India; Control of National Highways [Land and Traffic] Act 2002.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; impugned communication/demand dated 25.02.2017 issued by respondent No.2 (Annexure-F) quashed. ¶58

M/S Legacy Global Projects Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India — Company and Corporate | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition allowed; impugned communication/demand dated 25.02.2017 issued by respondent No.2 (Annexure-F) quashed.

¶58

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner's property, situated abutting the service road along NH-7, required separate access permission from respondent No.3-NHAI, i.e., whether the demand/communication dated 25.2.2017 issued by respondent No.2 (Annexure-F) is illegal. +1 more

¶24

Court's answer

Where there is a service road, occupants of residential properties situated abutting the service road can have access through the said service road without any requirement of permission.

¶57

Ratio / Principle

In light of the undisputed facts and the submission of learned counsel for respondent No.3, the petition is allowed and the impugned communication dated 25.02.2017 issued by respondent No.2 (Annexure-F) is quashed.

¶58

Key takeaways

If the petitioner intends to have access directly into the National Highway, it shall follow the guidelines prescribed.obiter¶59

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India - Petitioner claimed under a joint development agreement dated 09.02.2011 over land bearing Sy.No.50/4 (2 acres), Allalasandra Village, abutting NH-7, with a service road shown as its western boundary in the Official Memorandum dated 11.02.2005 and in the joint development agreement - Respondent No.2's communication dated 25.02.2017 (Annexure-F) demanded that the petitioner obtain access permission from respondent No.3-NHAI, failing which access to NH-7 would be blocked - Ministry of Road Transport and Highways guidelines (Annexure-E) provide that residential properties (RPs) in urban/built-up reaches shall have access through service road only - Held: where a service road exists, occupants of residential properties abutting the service road can have access through the service road without requirement of any permission - Counsel for respondent No.3-NHAI conceded that no permission or permission fee is required where the property abuts the service road - Communication dated 25.02.2017 quashed; petition allowed - Direct access into the National Highway, if intended by the petitioner, to be in accordance with the prescribed guidelines - Constitutional challenge to Sec. 28 of the Control of National Highways [Land and Traffic] Act 2002 was raised in the prayer but was not adjudicated in the order.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:34482 WP No. 17185 of 2017

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 17185 OF 2017 (GM-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

M/S LEGACY GLOBAL PROJECTS PVT LTD., INCORPORATED UNDER TEHE COMPANIES ACT 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT #333 THIMMAIAH ROAD BENGALURU-560 052 RERPESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SANJAY SHENOY.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. S SHAKER SHETTY.,ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

UNION OF INDIA

¶14

Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

REP.BY MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS PARIVAHAN BHAVAN NO.1 SANSAD MARG NEW DELHI-110 001 HAVING ITS LOCAL OFFICE IN THE OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER PWC ANNEXE BUILDING K R CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶16

NAVAYUGA DEVANAHALLI TOLLWAY PRIVATE LIMITED 1259, LAKSHMI TOWERS ROAD NO.36, JUBILEE HILLS HYDERABAD-500 033

¶17

¶18

NC: 2026:KHC:34482 WP No. 17185 of 2017

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

REP.BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY.

¶21

NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA REP. BY HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATOR AND GM (TECH) AND PROJECT DIRECTOR SY NO.13, 14 KM, NAGASANDRA BENGALURU TUMKUR ROAD, (NH-4) BENGALURU - 560 073.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. PADMANABHA HOLLA S.,ADVOCATE FOR R3; R1 AND R2- SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED)

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT SEC. 28 OF THE CONTROL OF NATIONAL HIGHWAYS [LAND AND TRAFFIC] ACT 2002 IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, ULTRA VIRES AND DISCRIMINATORY; DCLARE THE DEMAND DATED 25.2.2017 ISSUED BY THE R-2 AT ANNE-F IS ILLEGAL AND ACCORDINGLY QUASH THE SAME.

¶25

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

Petitioner who had entered into a joint development agreement dated 09.02.2011 in respect of land bearing Sy.No.50/4, measuring 2 acres situated at Allalasandra Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, bounded on, East by: Shivanahalli Village boundary; West by: Service Road, North by: Sy.No.50/3 and 50/2, South by: Jakkur plantation boundary, which property admittedly belonged to one

¶29

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:34482 WP No. 17185 of 2017

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

Rangappa and his family, is before this Court being aggrieved by a communication dated 25.02.2017 issued by respondent No.2, in terms of which respondent No.2 has called upon the petitioner to obtain necessary access permission for the above land from the respondent No.3-NHAI, on the premise that the said property is situated abutting the National Highway No.7(NH-7). That the said communication further states that failure on the part of the petitioner would result in access NH-7 being blocked.

¶32

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that originally the aforesaid land bearing Sy.No.50/4, measured 2 acres 32 guntas of which an extent of 16 guntas was acquired on 04.11.1986 for the purpose of formation of the highway. Thereafter, on two occasions, 8 guntas each lands of the same survey number was acquired for the same purpose on 22.07.2003 and 30.07.2010 respectively. Thus, an extent of 32 guntas of land out of 2 acres and 32 guntas has been acquired by the respondent No.3-NHAI for formation of the said highway.

¶33

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:34482 WP No. 17185 of 2017

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

3. He submits that the petitioner had entered into the joint agreement as stated above in respect of the remaining 2 acres of land. He refers to document at Annexure-A dated 11.02.2005, which is the Official Memorandum issued by the concerned Deputy Commissioner permitting change of land usage, from agricultural to non-agricultural purposes. He specifically brings notice of this Court, the description of boundary shown on the western side of the said land, which is shown as ''service road''. He also refers to description of the land mentioned in the schedule to the joint development agreement dated 09.02.2011, wherein the boundary on the western side is shown as ''service road''. Thus, he submits that service road has been in existence, even as on 11.02.2005, when concerned Deputy Commissioner had permitted change of land usage. Things stood thus, he submits, the impugned communication came to be issued by respondent No.2 directing the petitioner to obtain necessary permission, failure of which access to the national highway to be blocked.

¶36

4. In continuation he refers to Guidelines issued by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways as per Annexure-E with regard to the classification of properties situated abutting

¶37

¶38

NC: 2026:KHC:34482 WP No. 17185 of 2017

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

the National Highway to have access to the National Highways. He submits that there are two categories of properties. One described as ''Other Properties'' (OPs) and another described as ''Residential Properties'' (RPs). That the property subject matter of the petition, he submits, falls within the category of ''residential properties''. He draws attention of this Court to guideline No.II (1) and (2) to submit that the residential properties situated abutting the service road can have access through the service road alone. He insists there is no provision in the guidelines or elsewhere requiring any permission to be obtained by the occupants of the residential properties which are situated abutting the service road. He further submits that it is not the case of the respondent No.2 that there is any intervening property either belonging to the Government or otherwise between the property of the petitioner and the National Highway, except the service road. Therefore, he submits that the insistence of respondent No.2 to obtain permission is superfluous and contrary to the guidelines. Hence, he seeks for allowing of the petition.

¶41

5. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3-National Highway Authority of India, fairly submits that if, the property

¶42

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:34482 WP No. 17185 of 2017

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

being claimed by the petitioner is situated abutting to the service road there is no need or necessity for obtaining any permission or payment of any permission fee as such. He also submits on instructions that the property being claimed by the petitioner indeed situated abutting to the service road.

¶45

6. Heard and perused the records.

¶46

7. Location of the property, entitlement of the petitioner over the same is not in dispute. Annexure-E guidelines issued by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways for access permission to the properties (excluding fuel stations) along National Highways with reference to the residential property read as under:

¶47

'' 2. For Residential Properties (RPs):-

¶48

(i) As far as possible, in Urban /Built up reaches there shall be no direct access to the National Highway; the access be through service road only.

¶49

(ii) The service road in existing Built up reaches in Urban / Rural reaches may be constructed by the Highway Authority, subject to availability of funds.

¶50

(iii) In rural reaches the direct access can be granted.

¶51

(iv) The location & layout, road signs & markings for access permission for RPs in Urban & Rural reaches are specified in Annex I.''

¶52

8. Annexure-A, Official Memorandum issued by the

¶53

Deputy Commissioner on 11.02.2005, specifically refers to existence of service road on the western side of the property

¶54

¶55

NC: 2026:KHC:34482 WP No. 17185 of 2017

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

which is also finds mention at Annexure-B joint development agreement dated 09.02.2011. Read in the light of this fact, the guidelines extracted above indicate that if there is a service road, the occupants of the residential property situated abutting the service road can have access through said service roads, without requirement of any permission.

¶58

9. In the light of the aforesaid undisputed facts and the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent No.3, petition is allowed . Impugned communication dated 25.02.2017 issued by respondent No.2 as per Annexure-F is hereby quashed.

¶59

10. Needless to state, should the petitioner intend to have access directly into the National Highway, it shall follow the guidelines prescribed.

¶60

(M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE

¶61

¶62

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17

M/S Legacy Global Projects Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Legacy Global Projects Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Saba Simran Vs Union of India

Sri. D. R. Jayaprakash Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri. M Bhaskar Rao Vs Union of India

Smt. H.L. Poornachandra Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Smt. Almas Fathima Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Muniyappa Vs the Special Deputy COMMISSIONER-2