The Kerala High Court has quashed key steps in the land acquisition process for the proposed Sabarimala greenfield airport. The Court held that the state did not properly assess the “absolute bare minimum” land required and ordered a fresh process.
The Kerala High Court has set aside important steps taken by the Kerala government for acquiring land for the proposed Sabarimala greenfield airport, stating that the authorities failed to properly examine how much land was actually needed for the project.
The judgment was delivered on December 19 by Justice C Jayachandran while deciding a writ petition filed by Ayana Charitable Trust, earlier known as Gospel for Asia, and its managing trustee Dr Siny Punnoose.
ALSO READ: Kerala HC Stays Sabarimala Airport Land Acquisition Notification
The case relates to the proposed acquisition of a large stretch of land, mainly the Cheruvally Estate in Pathanamthitta district, for constructing a new airport meant to cater to lakhs of Sabarimala pilgrims.
The state government had issued an order on December 30, 2022, granting approval for the acquisition of around 2,570 acres of land. This included the entire Cheruvally Estate along with an additional 307 acres of land located outside the estate.
Following this, a notification under Section 11 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 was issued to move ahead with the acquisition.
However, the petitioners challenged several actions of the government, including the Social Impact Assessment (SIA) report, the appraisal by the expert committee, the government order approving the acquisition, and the subsequent Section 11 notification.
They argued that the authorities had not followed the mandatory legal requirement of assessing the minimum land needed for such a large infrastructure project.
After examining the matter, the High Court held that while the government has the power to acquire land for public purposes like an airport, the 2013 land acquisition law clearly requires that only the “absolute bare minimum” land necessary for the project can be acquired.
ALSO READ: Voters Seek Right to File Anti-Defection Petitions Against Local Bodies: Kerala HC
The Court pointed out that this requirement is specifically laid down under Sections 4(4)(d), 7(5)(b), and 8(1)(c) of the Act.
Justice Jayachandran found that the authorities failed to properly apply their mind while deciding the extent of land to be acquired and observed that there was “manifest non-application of mind” in assessing how much land was genuinely required for the airport project. According to the Court, this was a serious legal flaw in the decision-making process.
Because of this failure, the Court declared the Social Impact Assessment report, the Expert Committee appraisal report, and the government order approving the acquisition as invalid, to the extent that they did not properly address the issue of minimum land requirement.
Since the Section 11 notification could only be issued after valid completion of these earlier steps, the Court also quashed the Section 11 notification.
On the allegation raised by the petitioners that the government had committed fraud on power and had exercised its authority in a colourable manner, the Court did not give a final finding at this stage.
It clarified that this issue is closely connected to determining the minimum land required and can only be examined after that exercise is lawfully and properly completed.
The Court directed the Kerala government to restart the entire process from the beginning. It ordered the state to conduct a fresh Social Impact Assessment, strictly limited to examining the minimum land required for the airport project.
This must be followed by a fresh appraisal by the expert group and then a reconsideration of the issue by the government in accordance with law.
Before concluding the judgment, the High Court also made an important observation for future projects.
It suggested that for technically complex projects such as airports, the state should include technical experts as part of the Social Impact Assessment team so that decisions are taken in an informed, fair, and legally sound manner.
The writ petition was accordingly allowed, while keeping all other issues raised by the petitioners open for consideration at a later stage, depending on the outcome of the fresh land requirement assessment.
Click Here to Read More Reports On Sabarimala Airport Land Acquisition
