Raj HC directs removal of 2,216 encroachments within National Highway ROW, cites Article 21 road safety duty

Jaipur/Jodhpur: The Rajasthan High Court has held that any occupation within the Right of Way (ROW) or road land boundary of National and State Highways is per se illegal and incapable of regularisation, and that permissions granted by other departments cannot override statutory highway control norms. The Court further held that the protection of life under Article 21 of the Constitution includes the State’s positive obligation to ensure safe movement on public roads and highways.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Sandeep Shah recorded that demarcations such as centreline, road land boundary, building line and control line, as recognised under the National Highways Act, 1956, the Control of National Highways (Land and Traffic) Act, 2002 and Indian Roads Congress (IRC) standards, are founded upon scientifically evolved safety principles. The Court held that no construction is permissible within the building line, any occupation within the ROW is liable to removal, and only regulated construction with statutory permission is permissible within the control line.

The writ petition was filed by Himmat Singh Gehlot concerning a Dharmkanta/weighbridge situated in proximity to a National Highway. The Court recalled its earlier order dated 22.01.2026, wherein judicial notice was taken of communications issued by PWD, JDA, NHAI and Police authorities, and of an accident in proximity to the Dharmkanta resulting in loss of four lives. During hearing, the applicant sought extension of time for relocation of the Dharmkanta, and the Court granted 30 days’ additional time, modifying the earlier date to 06.03.2026 for voluntary removal/relocation in accordance with law.

Upon material placed before it, the Court recorded that the issue was not confined to the solitary Dharmkanta but disclosed a wider pattern of occupation within the ROW of National Highways across several districts of Rajasthan. Technical demarcations placed on record showed that ordinarily the road land boundary/building line lies about 40 metres from the centreline on either side, and the control line about 75 metres from the centreline.

The Court took judicial notice of road safety data published on 24.08.2025 in the report “Road Accidents in India – 2023,” which recorded 4,80,583 road accidents and 1,72,890 fatalities in 2023, noting that nearly 30% of total fatalities occur on National Highways. The Court also referred to the recent directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India (Writ Petition (C) No. 295 of 2012, decided on 07.10.2025), mandating identification and removal of encroachments affecting pedestrian and highway safety and coordinated action by authorities.

The data placed before the Court indicated that within the ROW of National Highways in Rajasthan there exist 103 religious, 881 residential and 1,232 commercial encroachments, including hotels and dhabas, across various districts. The Court recorded that such occupations impair sight distance, create uncontrolled access points and interfere with safe operational corridors of Highways.

The Court held that permissions granted by the Mining Department, Legal Metrology authorities, local bodies, electricity or trade licensing authorities cannot operate as a defence if a structure falls within a prohibited Highway zone, and that there can be no estoppel against statute or public safety. It further clarified that no religious structure can claim immunity from removal if it falls within the ROW, relying upon Union of India v. State of Gujarat (SLP (C) No. 8519/2006, decided on 29.09.2009).

In view of the material showing State-wide encroachments, the Court directed that all encroachments falling within the prohibited ROW shall be removed or suitably relocated within two months. Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 were directed to undertake coordinated action in consultation with District Collectors and Commissioners of Police/Superintendents of Police, with technical assistance from NHAI officials.

The Court directed that demarcation of ROW, road land boundary, building line and control line shall be carried out with videography, GPS coordinates and GIS mapping. A district-wise Encroachment Register containing photographs and geo-coordinates of each occupation shall be maintained, and accident-prone blackspot stretches shall be prioritised.

It was further directed that no department or local body shall grant or renew any licence, NOC, utility connection or trade approval for any site falling within Highway safety zones without prior clearance from NHAI/PWD. Existing permissions in violation shall be reviewed within fifteen days and kept in abeyance upon detection of violation. Police authorities were directed to provide necessary protection during removal and prevent re-encroachment.

The State was directed to file a district-wise status report within two months detailing encroachments identified within ROW and control lines and action taken for removal, supported by GIS mapping and photographic material. The State was also directed to clarify whether rules regulating roadside activities and access to Highways under Sections 138(1A) and 210-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 have been framed or are proposed, in compliance with the directions in S. Rajaseekaran (supra). The matter was listed for further monitoring on 10.03.2026.

Case Title
Himmat Singh Gehlot vs State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Case Number
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 24826/2025

Court
High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur

Bench
Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Justice Sandeep Shah

Date of Order
05/02/2026

Advocates
For the petitioner: Mr. Rajesh Joshi, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Rishi Soni and Ms. Kamini Joshi
For the respondents: Mr. Mahaveer Bishnoi, AAG; Dr. Sachin Acharya, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Chayan Bothra; Mr. Deepak Chandak, AAAG; Mr. Ankur Mathur; Mr. Rajat Dave

Judgments Relied Upon

S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India, W.P. (C) No. 295 of 2012, decided on 07.10.2025
Union of India v. State of Gujarat, SLP (C) No. 8519/2006, decided on 29.09.2009