The Kerala High Court has ignored crucial stages of the land acquisition process for the proposed greenfield Sabarimala airport, finding that the state failed to properly assess the minimum area of land actually required for the project.
On December 30, 2022, the state government issued an order approving the acquisition of 2,570 acres of land comprising Cheruvally Estate and another 307 acres outside it.
Justice C Jayachandran delivered the judgment on a writ petition filed by Ayana Charitable Trust (formerly Gospel for Asia) and its managing trustee Dr. Siny Punnoose and ruled that the decision-making process under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act of 2013 was legally flawed.
The court, in its December 19 order, ordered the state to restart the process by conducting a new social impact assessment limited to examining the minimum land requirement, followed by a re-assessment by the expert group and a re-examination by the government.
The petitioners had challenged several government actions, including the Social Impact Assessment (SIA) report, the assessment by the expert committee, the state government’s order approving the takeover and the subsequent notification under Section 11 of the 2013 Act.
The land in question, mainly Cheruvally Estate in Pathanamthitta district, is to be acquired for the construction of a new airport to serve Sabarimala pilgrims.
The court noted that while the state has the right to acquire land for public purposes, the law clearly states that only the “bare minimum” of land necessary for a project may be acquired.
According to the Court, this mandatory requirement under sections 4(4)(d), 7(5)(b) and 8(1)(c) of the 2013 Act was not properly complied with.
Justice Jayachandran noted that the authorities had shown “obvious indecision” in assessing how much land was really needed.
As a result, the SIA report, the expert committee report and the government regulation were declared invalid as they failed to meet this crucial requirement.
Since the Section 11 notification could only be made after these steps had been effectively completed, it was also repealed.
The court did not make a final decision on the plaintiff’s accusation of fraud and improper exercise of official authority. It noted that this issue is closely related to the determination of the minimum area required and can only be examined after this task has been properly completed.
Before reaching its conclusion, the court suggested that in technically complex projects such as airports, the state should include technical experts in the SIA team to ensure informed and lawful decision-making.
The writ petition was accordingly allowed, leaving other issues raised by the petitioners open for future consideration.
Published on December 21, 2025