101.WP.6495.2025 1/4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 6495 OF 2025 Santosh S/o. Motiram Shinde Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ______________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's order and Registrar's orders. Ms. Smita Singalkar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. D.P. Thakare, Addl. G.P. for Respondent No.1/State. Mr. D.V. Chauhan, Senior Advocate a/b. Mr. Chaitanya Dhruv and Mr. Aditya Chaudhari, Advocates for Respondent Nos.2 to 4. ------------------------------- CORAM : ANIL S. KILOR AND R AJ D. WAKODE , JJ. DATE : 02.02.2026 Heard. 2. By the present writ petition, the petitioner is praying for a direction to the respondent No.3 – Executive Engineer, Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation, Washim, to open the approach road which is alleged to have been blocked by respondent No.3 by constructing a wall in Survey No.106, belonging to the petitioner. 3. The brief facts of the present case are as under: The petitioner is running a restaurant/dhaba under the name and style of “Hotel Supriya Family Restaurant and Dhaba” and is also carrying out farming activities on the land in question. 4. The respondent No.3 is the Executive Engineer, Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation, the authority who has constructed Samruddhi Mahamarg, which starts from Nagpur to Mumbai. 2026:BHC-NAG:1973-DB 101.WP.6495.2025 2/4 5. The said expressway is designed for high-speed uninterrupted traffic flow. It is, therefore, paramount for public safety and traffic management to have controlled access, and with this concept, entry and exit points are carefully, scientifically and strategically planned based on traffic studies, safety considerations, geometric design requirements, and operational needs. 6. Accordingly, such controlled access expressways are constructed with continuous barriers and protective walls along the entire length specifically to prevent stray animals, unauthorized vehicles, pedestrians, and unauthorized entry, thereby ensuring uninterrupted high-speed traffic flow and traveller safety. 7. Thus, it is the case of the respondent – authorities that giving such access to the petitioner’s property from the expressway would allow stray animals, unauthorized vehicles, and pedestrians to enter the expressway through uncontrolled openings, completely vitiating the purpose of controlled access. Such access would further set an extremely dangerous precedent as every landowner whose property adjoins the expressway along its entire length from Nagpur to Mumbai would be entitled to demand similar access, resulting in numerous breaches in protective barriers, complete destruction of controlled access character, and chaotic unsafe conditions endangering thousands of travellers daily. 8. In the above-referred backdrop, on a specific query put to the learned counsel for the petitioner about the rights of the 101.WP.6495.2025 3/4 petitioner or any policy of the respondent No.3 to provide such access, the learned counsel fairly states that she does not have any such instructions about any policy of the respondent No.3 to grant access. As far as the rights are concerned, she has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of S. Balakrishnan & Anr. Vs. National Highways Authority of India & Ors., [Writ Petition No.21579 of 2014 and MP No.01/2014, decided on 15.02.2018], and has also relied upon the judgments in the cases of M. Gobinathan & Ors. Vs. The National Highways Authority of India & Ors. [W.P (MD) No.19193/2014 and M.P (MD) Nos.2 & 3 of 2014, decided on 21.09.2023], and Muthusamy Vs. The District Collector, Madurai, District Madurai [W.P (MD) No.26133/2022, decided on 19.01.2023], wherein the Court has held thus : “5. It is not so much about whether the petitioners' property was actually acquired or whether the petitioners were before the Land Acquisition Authority. What is significant is, in the garb of acquisition, petitioners' right of access is being denied by the Land Acquisition Authorities, and it does not matter how many families are affected thereby and what the guidelines are issued in this regard. If an owner of the land is denied access to and from his property by such activities of the National Highways Act, it is imperative that they are provided means to access. Infringing the right of easement has a lasting effect, an adverse effect in that, as it directly infringes on the fundamental rights of mobility under Article 19 and right to property under Article 300-A of the Constitution. Hence, the respondents concerned are directed to ensure that the petitioners are provided with necessary access to the main road in whatever way possible." 9. In the present matter, in the absence of sufficient pleadings regarding any easementary or statutory right to have access from the highway to the petitioner’s property, it would be 101.WP.6495.2025 4/4 difficult to grant the relief as prayed for. This is particularly so in view of the purpose stated and explained by the respondents for providing controlled access on the express highway. However, if, in fact there is no access available to the petitioner to approach his farm or restaurant, the petitioner would be at liberty to submit a detailed representation to the respondent- authorities, setting out all relevant facts and grounds to establish his entitlement to such an access way. If the authorities are directed to decide the representation, within stipulated period, the ends of justice would be subserved. 10. Accordingly, we pass the following order : ORDER i) The Writ Petition is dismissed. ii) However, the petitioner is at liberty to make a detailed representation to the respondent-authorities by giving all the necessary facts making him entitled for such access way; iii) If such representation is made within three weeks from the date of the order, the respondent No.3-Executive Engineer, Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation, Washim, is directed to decide such representation of the petitioner, within four weeks from the date of receipt of such representation. 11. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. (RAJ D. WAKODE, J.) (ANIL S. KILOR, J.) Vijaykumar