The High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati has formally dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) challenging the alignment of an interchange on the six-lane greenfield Chittoor-Thatchur Highway. The petition, filed by the Govardhana Girishwara Devasthnam Trust, had sought to shift the proposed interchange from the planned location at KM 86 + 180 near Sankarapuram, Appalaraju Kandriga, to an alternative site at KM 83.000. In a decisive ruling, the division bench led by Chief Justice Lisa Gill and Justice Challa Gunaranjan emphasized that highway infrastructure planning falls squarely within the domain of professional expertise and that judicial intervention is only appropriate in exceptional circumstances.

The court’s ruling settles a dispute concerning a critical segment of the access-controlled corridor, which forms part of the broader Bharat Mala Pariyojana project. The project is designed to enhance connectivity between the Chittoor region and the industrial and port infrastructure of Thatchur and Chennai. By rejecting the plea, the court has cleared the path for the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) to proceed with its existing plan, which the authority confirmed was finalized after rigorous technical feasibility and accessibility studies.

Technical Expertise and the Limits of Judicial Review

During the proceedings, the counsel for the NHAI argued that the petitioners were not representing a broad public interest, but were instead seeking to influence the location of the interchange to directly benefit their own lands and a temple under construction nearby. The NHAI contended that its planning process is thorough, involving independent engineers who assess traffic needs, commercial connectivity, and regional access.

Addressing the scope of judicial interference, the court cited the landmark judgment in Union of India v. Kushala Shetty and others , which established that the NHAI is a professionally managed statutory body. The court noted: “The projects involving construction of new highways and widening and development of the existing highways, which are vital for the development of infrastructure in the country, are entrusted to experts in the field of highways.” The court further observed that it is not equipped to decide upon the relative viability and feasibility of specific highway alignments, as these decisions depend on multifaceted factors including traffic intensity and national economic interest.

The bench held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any mala fides or clear violations of the National Highways Act, 1956, that would warrant a departure from the NHAI’s technical assessment. The court remarked that “neither has any violation of the mandate of the 1956 Act been established nor has the charge of malice in fact been proved.” Consequently, the petition was found to be devoid of merit.

Procedural Regularity in Highway Land Acquisition

A significant factor in the court's decision was the procedural history of the project’s land acquisition process. The NHAI informed the court that it had issued a notification under Section 3A of the National Highways Act, 1956, for the acquisition of 3.49 hectares of land on July 20, 2026. The statutory period for the public to file objections under Section 3C of the Act had lapsed without the petitioners or other residents submitting any formal challenge.

The NHAI clarified that the interchange at KM 86 + 180 was chosen because it provides the nearest, most suitable access point for the Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation (APIIC) zone, while simultaneously ensuring effective connectivity toward major destinations like Tirupati, Sri City, and the Satish Dhawan Space Center. The authority refuted claims of large-scale displacement of local residents, stating that the project primarily involves agricultural land, and no formal grievances were registered by the local community during the prescribed period.

Furthermore, the NHAI addressed environmental and ecological concerns raised by the trust, clarifying that no forest land is included in the acquisition. The authority noted that the proposed site does not intersect with any major water bodies, thereby negating the requirement for long-span bridges that the petitioners had argued were necessary for their suggested alternative.

Implications for Regional Infrastructure Connectivity

The project, which spans from KM 61.380 to KM 96.040 in Andhra Pradesh, is a key component of the state’s regional development strategy. By providing improved access between NH-716, NH-716B, NH-716A, and NH-16, the highway aims to streamline interstate logistics and support the growing commercial activity in the corridor. The court’s refusal to order a fresh comparative study prevents further delays to this timeline.

The judgment reaffirms the principle that infrastructure authorities must be granted the necessary latitude to execute planned projects once statutory processes have been completed and verified. By upholding the NHAI's decision-making process, the court has underscored that challenges to public infrastructure projects based on private interest or unsubstantiated technical critiques will not be entertained.

As the court has dismissed the petition and closed all pending miscellaneous applications, the NHAI is expected to move forward with the final notification under Section 3D of the National Highways Act, 1956. This step will officially confirm the acquisition of the required land, allowing the project to proceed toward the construction phase as scheduled, ensuring that the critical transit links between the hinterland and coastal industrial hubs are established according to the original technical design. The verdict serves as a definitive resolution for the current alignment dispute, marking a conclusion to the legal challenge brought against the proposed interchange location.