- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34482 WP No. 17185 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 17185 OF 2017 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 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. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. S SHAKER SHETTY.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. UNION OF INDIA 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. 2. NAVAYUGA DEVANAHALLI TOLLWAY PRIVATE LIMITED 1259, LAKSHMI TOWERS ROAD NO.36, JUBILEE HILLS HYDERABAD-500 033 Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34482 WP No. 17185 of 2017 REP.BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY. 3. 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. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PADMANABHA HOLLA S.,ADVOCATE FOR R3; R1 AND R2- SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED) 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. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL ORAL ORDER 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 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34482 WP No. 17185 of 2017 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. 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. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34482 WP No. 17185 of 2017 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. 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 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34482 WP No. 17185 of 2017 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. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3-National Highway Authority of India, fairly submits that if, the property - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34482 WP No. 17185 of 2017 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. 6. Heard and perused the records. 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: '' 2. For Residential Properties (RPs):- (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. (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. (iii) In rural reaches the direct access can be granted. (iv) The location & layout, road signs & markings for access permission for RPs in Urban & Rural reaches are specified in Annex I.'' 8. Annexure-A, Official Memorandum issued by the Deputy Commissioner on 11.02.2005, specifically refers to existence of service road on the western side of the property - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34482 WP No. 17185 of 2017 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. 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. 10. Needless to state, should the petitioner intend to have access directly into the National Highway, it shall follow the guidelines prescribed. Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE RL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17