The Kerala High Court has set aside crucial stages of the land acquisition process for the proposed Sabarimala greenfield airport, ruling that the state government failed to properly assess how much land was actually required for the project. The court has directed the state to restart the process, beginning with a fresh social impact assessment focused strictly on the minimum land requirement.
In a judgment delivered on December 19, Justice C Jayachandran held that the decision-making process under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 suffered from serious legal defects. The ruling came on a writ petition filed by Ayana Charitable Trust, formerly Gospel for Asia, and its managing trustee Dr Siny Punnoose.
The dispute relates to the state government’s December 30, 2022 order granting sanction to acquire 2,570 acres of land for the airport project. This included the Cheruvally Estate in Pathanamthitta district along with an additional 307 acres outside the estate. The proposed airport is intended to serve pilgrims visiting the Sabarimala temple.
The petitioners had challenged multiple steps in the acquisition process, including the Social Impact Assessment report, the appraisal by the expert committee, the government order approving the acquisition, and the subsequent notification issued under Section 11 of the 2013 Act.
While acknowledging the state’s authority to acquire land for public purposes, the court stressed that the law permits acquisition only of the “absolute bare minimum” extent of land required for a project. Justice Jayachandran noted that this mandatory requirement, embedded in Sections 4(4)(d), 7(5)(b), and 8(1)(c) of the Act, was not properly followed in this case.
The judgment recorded that the authorities had shown “manifest non-application of mind” in assessing the actual land needed for the airport. As a result, the court declared the SIA report, the expert committee appraisal, and the government order invalid to the extent they failed to address the minimum land requirement. Since the Section 11 notification depended on the valid completion of these steps, it too was quashed.
The court directed the state government to begin the process afresh by conducting a new social impact assessment limited to examining the minimum land required for the project. This is to be followed by a fresh appraisal by the expert group and a reconsideration of the matter by the government.
On allegations raised by the petitioners of fraud on power and colourable exercise of authority, the court refrained from giving a final finding. It held that these issues are closely connected to the determination of the minimum land requirement and can only be examined after that exercise is lawfully completed.
Before concluding, the court also suggested that for technically complex projects such as airports, the state should include technical experts in the SIA team to ensure informed and legally sound decision-making. The writ petition was accordingly allowed, with other issues raised by the petitioners kept open for future consideration.
