The Kerala High court struck down the Social Impact Assessment, expert committee appraisal, and the state’s 2022 order approving the acquisition of 2,570 acres, citing “non-application of mind” on minimum land requirements in Sabarimala airport case.
It directed the state to conduct a fresh, limited Social Impact Assessment to determine the “absolute bare minimum” land needed, followed by a new expert appraisal and government decision.
The Section 11 acquisition notification was also quashed, while allegations of misuse of power were left open for reconsideration after the fresh assessment.
Kerala HC Quashes Process of Land Acquisition for Sabarimala Airport
The Kerala High Court has set aside crucial stages of the land acquisition process for the proposed Sabarimala greenfield airport, citing the state’s failure to determine the minimum land required for the project. The court has directed the government to restart the process in line with the 2013 land acquisition law.
Summary
The Kerala High Court has struck down key stages of the land acquisition process for the proposed Sabarimala greenfield airport, ruling that the state failed to determine the minimum land actually required for the project as mandated by law.
The case concerns the state government’s December 30, 2022 order approving the acquisition of 2,570 acres of land, including the Cheruvally Estate and an additional 307 acres outside its boundaries. The land, located in Pathanamthitta district, is intended for an airport aimed at facilitating travel for Sabarimala pilgrims.
Justice C Jayachandran, while allowing a writ petition filed by Ayana Charitable Trust (formerly Gospel for Asia) and its managing trustee Dr Siny Punnoose, held that the decision-making process under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 was legally deficient.
In its order dated December 19, the court directed the state to restart the acquisition process from the beginning by conducting a fresh Social Impact Assessment (SIA) strictly limited to evaluating the “absolute bare minimum” land required for the project. This exercise must be followed by a new appraisal by the expert committee and a fresh decision by the government.
The petitioners had challenged the validity of the SIA report, the expert committee’s appraisal, the government order approving the acquisition, and the subsequent notification issued under Section 11 of the 2013 Act. PTI reported.
The court emphasised that while land can be acquired for public purposes, the law imposes a clear obligation on the state to restrict acquisition to the minimum extent necessary. It found that this statutory requirement under Sections 4(4)(d), 7(5)(b), and 8(1)(c) of the Act had not been meaningfully addressed.
Justice Jayachandran noted a “manifest non-application of mind” by the authorities in assessing land requirements, rendering the SIA report, the expert committee’s recommendations, and the government order invalid to that extent. Since the Section 11 notification was issued on the basis of these flawed steps, it was also quashed. PTI reported.
On allegations of fraud on power and colourable exercise of authority, the court declined to give a final ruling, stating that these issues are intrinsically linked to the determination of minimum land requirements and can only be examined after that process is lawfully completed.
Advertisement
The court also observed that for technically complex projects such as airports, the inclusion of technical experts in the SIA process would be necessary to ensure informed and legally sound decisions.
The writ petition was allowed, with all other contentions raised by the petitioners kept open for future consideration.
(With inputs from PTI)
Published At: