Kerala HC sets aside Sabarimala airport land acquisition process

The Kerala High Court has set aside crucial stages of the land acquisition process for the proposed Sabarimala greenfield airport, holding that the State failed to properly assess the minimum land actually required for the project.

On December 30, 2022, the State Government issued an order granting sanction for the acquisition of 2,570 acres of land, comprising the Cheruvally Estate and an additional 307 acres located outside it. Justice C Jayachandran, delivering the judgment on a writ petition filed by Ayana Charitable Trust (formerly Gospel for Asia) and its managing trustee Dr Siny Punnoose, ruled the decision-making process under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, was legally flawed.

The court, in its December 19 order, directed the State to restart the process by conducting a fresh social impact assessment limited to examining the minimum land requirement, followed by a fresh appraisal by the expert group and reconsideration by the Government.

The petitioners had challenged several Government actions, including the Social Impact Assessment (SIA) report, the expert committee appraisal, the State Government order approving the acquisition, and the subsequent notification under Section 11 of the 2013 Act. The land in question, mainly the Cheruvally Estate in Pathanamthitta district, is proposed to be acquired for building a new airport intended to serve Sabarimala pilgrims.

The court found that while the State is entitled to acquire land for public purposes, the law clearly mandates that only the “absolute bare minimum” extent of land required for a project can be acquired.

According to the court, this mandatory requirement under Sections 4(4)(d), 7(5)(b), and 8(1)(c) of the 2013 Act was not properly complied with.

Justice Jayachandran observed that the authorities had shown “manifest non-application of mind” in assessing how much land was genuinely necessary.

As a result, the SIA report, the Expert Committee report and the Government order were declared invalid to the extent they failed to address this crucial requirement.

Since the Section 11 notification could only be issued after a valid completion of these steps, it too was quashed. On the petitioners’ allegation of fraud on power and colourable exercise of authority, the court did not give a final finding. It held that this issue is closely linked to determining the minimum land required and can only be examined after that exercise is properly completed.

Before concluding, the court suggested that for technically complex projects like airports, the state should include technical experts in the SIA team to ensure informed and lawful decision-making. The writ petition was accordingly allowed, keeping other issues raised by the petitioners open for future consideration.