The Kerala High Court has invalidated major steps in the land acquisition process for the proposed Sabarimala Greenfield Airport, ruling that the state failed to determine the minimum land required under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
The decision, delivered by Justice C Jayachandran on writ petitions filed by Ayana Charitable Trust (formerly Gospel for Asia) and Ayana Charitable Society, specifically targeted the acquisition of 2,570 acres, including 2,263 acres of the Cheruvally Estate in Pathanamthitta and 307 additional acres. The petitioners had challenged the scale and legality of the acquisition, citing defective reports and lack of justification.
The court found that the Social Impact Assessment (SIA) report, expert committee recommendations, and government approvals failed to establish the “absolute minimum” land needed for the airport. Justice Jayachandran noted that comparable airports in Kerala, such as Cochin (1,300 acres), Thiruvananthapuram (700 acres), Kozhikode (373 acres), and Kannur (2,300 acres), function on smaller land parcels, and even for the largest IFR-capable aircraft, approximately 1,200 acres would be sufficient.
The court emphasized that land acquisition must strictly follow statutory mandates and criticized the authorities for “manifest non-application of mind” in evaluating the project’s actual land requirement. Allegations of fraud and misuse of power raised by the petitioners were not decided, as they are tied to the determination of the minimum land requirement.
Consequently, the court quashed the SIA report, expert committee report, government orders sanctioning the acquisition, and the Section 11 notification. It directed the state to restart the acquisition process, including a fresh SIA limited to the bare minimum land required, a new expert appraisal, and reconsideration by the government.
The court also advised involving qualified technical experts in the SIA for complex infrastructure projects to ensure informed, transparent, and legally sound decisions. Other issues raised by the petitioners remain open for future adjudication.
