Failure to Justify 'Absolute Bare-Minimum' Land Extent Vitiates Kerala's Sabarimala Airport Acquisition: HC

In a significant blow to the ambitious Sabarimala Greenfield Airport project, the High Court of Kerala has quashed major government notifications regarding land acquisition. Justice C. Jayachandran ruled that the State failed to comply with the mandatory legal requirement under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (LARR Act), specifically the obligation to prove that the acquired land constitutes the "absolute bare-minimum" required for the project.

The Sabarimala Airport Setback

The Ayana Charitable Trust, the owner of the 2,263-acre Cheruvally Estate, challenged the acquisition proceedings for the third time in the High Court. The petitioners argued that the government’s efforts to acquire their land ignored viable alternatives and lacked technical justification for the massive 2,570-acre requirement. While the government contended that the sprawling acreage was necessary for "future growth and expansion," the Court remained unconvinced by the lack of empirical supporting data.

The 'Bare-Minimum' Legal Mandate

Under the 2013 Act, the Social Impact Assessment (SIA) study, the Expert Group appraisal, and the final governmental approval are legally bound to ensure that the extent of land proposed for acquisition is the "absolute bare-minimum" for the project.

The Court observed that documentation from the Airports Authority of India suggested that even for large international aircraft, the "ideal" land requirement is significantly lower than the 2,570 acres sought in the current proposal. "There is no correlation, whatsoever, of that technical data, with the extent of land required for the airport project," Justice C. Jayachandran noted, highlighting the failure of the authorities to provide a reasoned explanation for the vast scale of the acquisition.

A History of Litigation and Alleged 'Colourable Exercise of Power'

The petitioner alleged that the acquisition was not a bonafide public utility project but a "colourable exercise of power" aimed specifically at the Ayana Charitable Trust, citing eight prior unsuccessful governmental attempts to divest the organization of the property. While the Court stopped short of declaring the entire project an act of fraud at this stage, it clearly signaled that if the government fails to justify the acreage, the allegations of prejudice gain significant weight. For now, the court left this issue open, opting to focus on the procedural lapses in the decision-making process.

Court's Verdict: Procedure Trumps Project Haste

The Court’s decision emphasizes that the state has a "higher responsibility in demonstrating that it has acted within the confines of legality" when dispossessing citizens of private property. By striking down the notifications, the Court has effectively forced the government to restart the process. The State must now conduct a fresh SIA study, ensuring it addresses the specific "bare-minimum" requirement and possibly includes technical experts capable of assessing the real-world spatial needs of an airport project.

Key Observations

• "The state has a higher responsibility in demonstrating that it has acted within the confines of legality, rather than enjoying a wider bandwidth of lenience."
• "There is not even a whisper to that aspect in Ext.P48. This Court may have to say that Ext.P48 Order of the Government is worser than Ext.P45 S.I.A. report and Ext.P47 report of the Expert Group."
• "As against 1200 acres, the proposal for Sabarimala Greenfield Airport is to an extent of 2570 acres, which is more than double the extent indicated ... the purpose for which and the necessity of which is liable to be explained by the requisitioning authority."
• "The fatal flow is found in the 'decision making process', than the 'decision' as reflected... there is manifest non-application of mind."

The judgment serves as a stern reminder that even large-scale infrastructure projects cannot bypass the procedural safeguards intended to protect individual property rights under the 2013 Act. The State of Kerala must now return to the drawing board to determine if its grand plans for the Sabarimala gateway can actually be reconciled with the law.