NHAI Has Expertise In Development & Maintenance Of Highways, Courts Can't Interfere In Project Unless Mala Fide Shown: AP High Court

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has dismissed a PIL seeking an alternative location for the proposed Chittoor-Thatchur Highway interchange, holding that the petitioners failed to establish any ground to doubt the alignment approved by the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI).

The Court declined to direct a fresh feasibility assessment, observing that highway alignment decisions involve technical expertise and warrant judicial interference only in exceptional cases involving illegality or mala fides.

Section 3A of the National Highways Act, 1956, empowers the Central Government to notify its intention to acquire land for a public purpose relating to a national highway. The notification must briefly describe the land and be published in two local newspapers, one in a vernacular language.

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Lisa Gill and Justice Challa Gunaranjan was hearing a PIL seeking a comparative feasibility assessment of the proposed interchange at kilometre 86 +180 near Appalaraju Kandriga, Sankarapuram, and an alternative location at kilometre 83.000/83.200 near the Govardhanagiri Limited Vertical Underpass (LVUP) junction.

The Court observed:

“It is the specific case of respondent that it is only after a proper feasibility and accessibility study conducted by Independent Engineer (IE) and as approved by NHAI headquarters that notification under section 3A of the Act has been issued and that there is no displacement of habitation. No wildlife or environmental issues have been identified at KM 86 + 180 and said interchange does not cross any river, stream, canal or major water body. No major or long-span bridge is proposed.

As noted in earlier paras, no such ground has been pointed out by petitioners, which would persuade us to cause interference. We also do not find any ground to direct respondents to consider representation dated 02.09.2026 submitted by petitioners, as has been suggested by learned counsel for petitioners, who states that final notification under section 3D of the Act has still not been issued, therefore, his representation should be considered. Such a direction, at this stage, in given factual matrix is not called for.”

The matter arose from the NHAI's development of the six-lane, access-controlled Chittoor-Thatchur Greenfield Highway, forming part of NH-716B under the Bharat Mala Pariyojana. The project envisaged interchanges, underpasses and other access facilities at locations identified following technical assessments.

For the project, the NHAI proposed an interchange at kilometre 86+180 in Tirupati district, following a recommendation by an Independent Engineer based on an accessibility study.

The proposal received in-principle approval from the NHAI headquarters, following which the Competent Authority for Land Acquisition (CALA) was asked to initiate the acquisition of additional land. A notification under Section 3A of the National Highways Act was subsequently issued for the proposed acquisition of 3.49 hectares.

The petitioners, however, proposed an alternative location at kilometre 83.000/83.200 near the Govardhanagiri LVUP junction, contending that it would provide a shorter and more convenient route for the surrounding population, pilgrims, tourists, industrial commuters and transporters. They further submitted that, being a charitable trust working for the larger public good, there was no question of any private interest.

They also claimed that it would improve connectivity between NH-716, NH-716B, NH-716A and NH-16 and facilitate access to Sri City Special Economic Zone, Satish Dhawan Space Centre SHAR and Sriharikota.

The petitioners further sought a comparative technical, traffic, environmental, social and financial feasibility study of both locations, along with an on-site inspection by a competent committee.

They offered to make their land available for the proposed interchange and sought consideration of issues concerning displacement of habitation, proximity to forest areas, river crossings, project costs and connectivity.

The petitioners accordingly approached the High Court through a PIL, seeking directions to the authorities to examine the alternative alignment and pass a reasoned order on their representation.

Opposing the petition, the NHAI submitted that no objections had been filed under Section 3C of the National Highways Act within the prescribed period and that the petitioners' representation was made only after the deadline had expired. The proposal for a declaration under Section 3D of the Act was still being processed.

The NHAI further contended that the petitioners, who owned land near the alternative site, sought an interchange adjacent to the Govardhanagiri temple, which belonged to the first petitioner and was under construction. It alleged that their offer of free land for the ramps was linked to locating the interchange where it would increase the value of their land and temple.

Denying the alleged displacement of 22 houses and 140 voters, the NHAI submitted that the land required was predominantly agricultural and no habitation was proposed to be displaced. It added that no forest land was being acquired and the proposed interchange involved no crossing of any river, stream, canal or major water body.

After considering the rival submissions, the Bench rejected the contention that the first petitioner being a charitable trust ruled out the possibility of private interest. It noted that the petitioners owned land near the proposed alternative location and found that the site plan relied upon by them did not support their case.

The Court also took note of the NHAI's submission that the proposed location had been selected after a feasibility and accessibility study, with no wildlife or environmental issues identified at kilometre 86+180.

The Bench observed that the NHAI was a professionally managed statutory body with expertise in highway development and maintenance. Courts, it said, were not equipped to determine the viability and feasibility of a particular highway alignment in place of technical experts.

Reiterating that judicial interference in highway projects is warranted only in exceptional cases involving illegality or mala fides, the Court found that the petitioners had established no such ground to challenge the proposed alignment.

The Bench also declined to direct the authorities to consider the petitioners' representation, despite the submission that the final notification under Section 3D of the Act had not yet been issued. It held that such a direction was not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case.

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the PIL as devoid of merit and closed the pending miscellaneous applications. No costs were imposed.

Counsel for the Petitioners: Mr. Patanjali Pamidighantam

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. Thandava Yogesh, Standing Counsel for NHAI