Kochi: The Kerala High Court has quashed key stages of the land acquisition process for the proposed Sabarimala greenfield airport, ruling that the state government failed to properly determine the minimum land required for the project.

In an order dated December 19, Justice C Jayachandran held that the decision-making process adopted by the state under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, suffered from serious legal infirmities.

The court examined a government order issued on December 30, 2022, which had sanctioned the acquisition of 2,570 acres of land for the airport project. This included the Cheruvally Estate in Pathanamthitta district and an additional 307 acres of land outside the estate.

Allowing a writ petition filed by Ayana Charitable Trust, formerly known as Gospel for Asia, and its managing trustee, Dr Siny Punnoose, the High Court directed the state to restart the land acquisition process from the initial stages.

The court ordered that a fresh Social Impact Assessment (SIA) be conducted, strictly limited to assessing the “absolute bare minimum” land required for the proposed Sabarimala airport. This must be followed by a new appraisal by the expert committee and a fresh consideration by the state government.

The petitioners had challenged multiple steps taken by the government, including the SIA report, the expert committee’s appraisal, the state’s approval for land acquisition and the subsequent notification issued under Section 11 of the 2013 Act.

The land proposed for acquisition, primarily the Cheruvally Estate, is intended for the construction of a greenfield airport aimed at catering to millions of Sabarimala pilgrims each year.

While acknowledging the state’s authority to acquire land for public purposes, the High Court underscored that the law mandates acquisition only to the extent of land that is strictly necessary for a project. It held that the statutory requirements under Sections 4(4)(d), 7(5)(b), and 8(1)(c) of the 2013 Act were not complied with in this case.

Justice Jayachandran observed a “manifest non-application of mind” on the part of the authorities in evaluating the actual land requirement for the airport project.

Consequently, the court declared the SIA report, the expert committee report and the government order invalid to the extent that they failed to address the minimum land requirement. Since the Section 11 notification was issued based on these flawed processes, it was also set aside.

On allegations of fraud on power and colourable exercise of authority raised by the petitioners, the court refrained from delivering a conclusive finding. It held that these issues are intrinsically linked to the determination of minimum land requirements and can be examined only after that exercise is lawfully completed.

The court also advised that for technically complex infrastructure projects such as airports, the state should include qualified technical experts in the SIA process to ensure informed, transparent and legally sound decision-making.

The writ petition was accordingly allowed, with other issues raised by the petitioners left open for future adjudication.

PTI