Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Ker) 3133

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C. JAYACHANDRAN, J.
Ayana Charitable Trust – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent
W.P. (C) No. 18326 of 2025
Decided On : 19-12-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Amit Sibal, Dhiraj Abraham Philip, Darpan Sachdeva, Rishikesh Haridas
For the Respondents: P. Haridas, Biju Hariharan, Shijimol M. Mathew, P.C. Shijin, Roshin Mariam Jacob, M.H. Hanil Kumar, S. Kannan, K. Gopalakrishna Kurup, V. Manu, Prajisha O.K.

Mandatory requirements of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act need to be strictly followed to ensure only the absolute minimum land required for projects is acquired.

Headnote:(A) Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Sections 4(1), 4(4)(d), 7(5)(b), and 8(1)(c) - Writ petition seeking to quash notifications pertaining to land acquisition for Sabarimala Greenfield Airport - Court finds mandatory requirements of the Act regarding minimum extent needed for project not fulfilled, leading to the quashing of notifications and reports challenging the acquisition. (Paras 1, 47, 48)

(B) Land Acquisition - Legal requirements for land acquisition include conducting a Social Impact Assessment and ensuring only the absolute minimum land is acquired - Petitioners allege that acquisition is a colorable exercise of power, and the court agrees that correct procedures were not followed regarding the determination of the bare-minimum requirement. (Paras 3-4, 9-10, 11-12, 21-22, 47-48)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners challenge land acquisition notifications regarding 2263 acres for the Greenfield Airport project, alleging lack of compliance with mandatory assessment requirements under the 2013 Act. Court observes potential prior attempts by the government to acquire the same land, raising concerns of systematic attempts to dispossess the petitioners.

Findings of Court:
Court determines that the government failed to meet legal standards for determining the minimum extent of land required for the project, violating the petitioners' rights.

Issues: The court examines whether the legal requirements for assessing land needs under the 2013 Act were satisfied and if accusations of colorable exercise of power hold merit.

Ratio Decidendi: The court concludes that the state authorities must substantiate their claim concerning land acquisition requirements, noting deficiencies in the evidence presented in the Social Impact Assessment and Expert Group reports.

Result: Writ petition allowed, notifications quashed. (Paras 47-48)

JUDGMENT :

C. JAYACHANDRAN, J.

1. In this Writ Petition, the petitioners seek to quash Ext.P49 notification issued by the 1^st respondent/State under Section 11 (1) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 ('2013 Act', for short). The petitioners also seek quashment of Ext.P41 notification and Ext.P45 Social Impact Assessment Report under Section 4 (1), Ext.P47 Expert Group Appraisal Report under Section 7 and Ext.P48 Government Order issued under Section 8 of the 2013 Act. The acquisition in question is one pertaining to the development of the Sabarimala Greenfield Airport Project. In respect of the self-same acquisition, this is the third occasion where the petitioners approach this Court. The following list of dates will unfurl the essential events which ultimately led to the filing of the instant Writ Petition:

LIST OF DATES AND ESSENTIAL EVENTS IN THE CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER:

TABLE - I

2. Heard Sri.Amit Sibal, learned Senior Counsel, duly instructed by Adv.Dhiraj Abraham Philip and Adv.Darpan Sachdeva on behalf of the petitioners; Sri.K.Gopalakrishna Kurup, learned Advocate General on behalf of respondents 1 to 5 and Sri.P.Haridas, learned counsel on behalf of respondents 6 to 9. Perused the records.

3. In this Writ Petition, Exts.P45 to P49 are challenged essentially 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 is 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 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. A detailed reference to such events will be made during the course of this judgment, whereby the petitioners would allege that the Government was taking steps, one after another, by exploring all possibilities under various statutes, to deprive the petitioners of the subject property.

4. On the second ground, the petitioners would allege 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 is the second contention in this direction 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. In respect of both these aspects, it is the petitioners' allegation that the findings of a four-member committee, constituted for ascertaining the possible sites for the Sabarimala Greenfield Airport Project, has been merely endorsed by the Social Impact Assessment Unit constituted under Section 4 of the 2013 Act; the Expert Group, constituted as per Section 7 of the 2013 Act, and also, by the appropriate Government in terms of Section 8 of the 2013 Act.

5. Based on the arguments addressed the following points are raised for consideration:

I. Whether the mandatory legal requirement in terms of Section 4 (4)(d), Section 7 (5)(b) and Section 8 (1)(c) of the 2013 Act, to ensure that only the absolute bare-minimum extent needed for the Project is acquired, has been satisfied as per Ext.P45 S.I.A. study report, Ext.P47 report of the Expert Group and Ext.P48 Order of the Government.

II. Within the scope of S.I.A. study, is it imperative that the S.I.A. study team should consider the availability of alternate lands for acquisition and to satisfy that the same are not feasible? or is it necessary only to ens