Kerala High Court nullifies land acquisition for proposed Sabarimala greenfield airport

The Kerala High Court has set aside the land acquisition process for the proposed Sabarimala greenfield airport while allowing a writ petition seeking to quash the notification issued by the State under Section 11(1) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. 

The petition filed by Ayana Charitable Trust also sought quashment of notification and Social Impact Assessment Report under Section 4(1), Expert Group Appraisal Report under Section 7 and Government Order issued under Section 8 of the 2013 Act.

In 2017, the Government of Kerala had issued a Government Order detailing the steps to be taken for the new Greenfield Airport to convenience pilgrims.

"The acquisitioning authority will have to restart the exercise of a fresh S.I.A. study as regards Section 4(4)(d) is concerned, followed by an appraisal in that regard by the Expert Group as per Section 7 and an examination of the proposal and the Social Impact Assessment report by the appropriate Government in terms of Section 8 of the 2013 Act", a single judge bench of the High Court has ordered.

As regards the choice of the Social Impact Assessment study team, the high court has said it may be profitable/advisable to include such number of technical members having sufficient know-how of the project for which the acquisition is made, especially when one among the requirements in terms of Section 4(4) of the 2013 Act is to ascertain whether the extent of land proposed for acquisition is the absolute bare-minimum needed for the project.

"This is all the more so, in cases of acquisition of land for technical projects like airport, dams etc. Inasmuch as the exercise commencing from Section 4 of the 2013 Act has to be performed again, so as to satisfy the requirements of Section 4(4)(d), the 1st respondent Government may consider inclusion of such expert members into the S.I.A. study team, the presence of whom would ease the business, which they are expected to perform", the order states.

The writ petition challenged the government orders on two grounds, namely, (1) colourable exercise of power or, alternatively, fraud on power and (2) Non-compliance of the mandatory requirements of the 2013 Act.

Under the first ground, it was the petitioners' contention that the proposed acquisition stems from a pre-concerted decision of the Government to take over the petitioners' property, having an extent of 2263 acres; and not based on a genuine study as to the suitability of the land, as also, the availability of alternate lands. In other words, the whole acquisition proceeding was alleged to be initiated with an eye fixed on divestiture of the petitioners from the said 2263 acres of land, which allegation is levelled on the strength of the various events which transpired prior to the acquisition proceedings in question

On the second ground, the petitioners alleged that the mandatory requirement of ensuring that the absolute bare-minimum extent required for the project alone is acquired, has not been complied with. It was argued that the determination regarding the possible alternate sites for the project and its feasibility, was also not properly considered in terms of the 2013 Act, thereby violating the mandatory requirements of the Act.

Case Title: AYANA CHARITABLE TRUST (FORMERLY KNOWN AS GOSPEL FOR ASIA) vs. THE STATE OF KERALA