Introduction:

In Ayana Charitable Trust and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Ors., reported as 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 839, the Kerala High Court undertook an intensive judicial review of the State’s decision to acquire 2570 acres of land for the proposed Sabarimala Greenfield Airport Project, a project projected as a major infrastructure initiative linked to the Sabarimala pilgrimage. The writ petition was filed by Ayana Charitable Trust and its Managing Trustee, owners of Cheruvally Estate, which alone constituted 2263 acres of the proposed acquisition. The petition challenged the preliminary notification, the Social Impact Assessment (SIA) report, the Expert Group Appraisal report, and subsequent government orders, alleging that the entire acquisition process was vitiated by non-application of mind, violation of statutory safeguards under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, and amounted to a colourable exercise of power aimed at acquiring the petitioners’ estate. The matter was heard and decided by Justice C. Jayachandran, who allowed the writ petition and set aside the acquisition proceedings, holding that the decision-making process was fundamentally flawed for failure to assess and justify the “absolute bare minimum” land required, a core statutory requirement under the 2013 Act.

Arguments of the Petitioners:

The petitioners, represented by Senior Advocate Amit Sibal, assisted by Advocates Dhiraj Abraham Philip, Darpan Sachdeva and Rishikesh Haridas, argued that the acquisition proceedings were not merely procedurally irregular but substantively illegal and constitutionally infirm. It was contended that the Sabarimala Greenfield Project was conceived and executed with a predetermined objective of acquiring the Cheruvally Estate, rather than identifying land based on genuine project requirements. The petitioners stressed that the State proposed to acquire more than double the land required even by its own material, without offering any intelligible justification for such excess acquisition. They argued that under the 2013 Act, acquisition is no longer a unilateral sovereign act but a rights-sensitive process requiring transparency, proportionality, and minimal displacement. The SIA report, they contended, was a mere formality that failed to examine critical aspects such as future expansion, phased development, or quantified infrastructural needs. It was also argued that the Expert Group Appraisal report mechanically endorsed the SIA findings without independent evaluation, thereby defeating the statutory safeguard envisaged under Sections 7 and 8 of the Act. The petitioners further submitted that alternative sites were not meaningfully evaluated and that the feasibility of acquiring smaller parcels of land or phased acquisition was never explored. They relied heavily on the Airports Authority of India (AAI) communication, produced by the State itself, which indicated that an ideal international greenfield airport requires around 1200 acres, thereby exposing the arbitrariness of acquiring 2570 acres. On the issue of colourable exercise of power, the petitioners highlighted past attempts by the State to acquire Cheruvally Estate for various projects, asserting a pattern of targeting their land. They contended that such excessive acquisition, without justification, amounted to a fraud on power, violating Articles 14 and 300A of the Constitution.

Arguments of the Respondents:

The State of Kerala, represented by the Advocate General K. Gopalakrishna Kurup, assisted by Senior and Special Government Pleaders, defended the acquisition as a policy decision taken in public interest. The State argued that the Sabarimala Greenfield Airport was envisaged as a long-term infrastructure project intended to cater to the unique and massive pilgrimage traffic associated with Sabarimala, necessitating a longer runway, expanded facilities, and future scalability. It was submitted that the 1200-acre figure mentioned by AAI was only indicative of an “ideal scenario” and did not preclude the State from acquiring additional land based on future growth projections. The State contended that the SIA study was conducted in accordance with statutory requirements, public hearings were held, and all procedural steps under the 2013 Act were followed. On the issue of alternative sites, the respondents submitted that a 2017 high-level review meeting, chaired by the Chief Minister, had considered at least five different estates, and Cheruvally Estate was found to be the most suitable due to contiguity, topography, and availability of large continuous land. The State denied allegations of mala fides or colourable exercise of power, arguing that the acquisition was driven by genuine public purpose and administrative necessity. It was further contended that courts should exercise restraint in interfering with infrastructure projects of public importance unless clear illegality is demonstrated.

Court’s Judgment:

After an exhaustive examination of the statutory framework and factual record, the Kerala High Court decisively ruled in favour of the petitioners. Justice C. Jayachandran undertook a detailed analysis of the preamble and Sections 2 to 8, 11 and 15 of the 2013 Act, emphasising that one of the Act’s central objectives is to ensure that land acquisition causes minimum disturbance to landowners and is confined strictly to what is absolutely necessary. The Court reiterated that Social Impact Assessment is not a ritualistic exercise, but the very foundation of lawful acquisition under the Act. Examining the AAI document relied upon by the State, the Court noted that while 1200 acres is not an inviolable cap, any acquisition beyond this minimum requires cogent, data-backed justification, which was conspicuously absent. The Court found that the SIA report failed to answer basic questions: what infrastructure is presently envisaged, what precise future expansion is planned, and what additional land is required for such expansion. The vague reference to “future growth” was held to be wholly insufficient. The Court also found that the Expert Group failed in its statutory duty, as it merely echoed the SIA report without independently evaluating whether the proposed acquisition satisfied the “absolute bare minimum” requirement. Even more severely, the Court observed that the Government Order approving acquisition was worse than both reports, reflecting total non-application of mind to this vital statutory mandate. While rejecting the argument that the SIA team must independently scout alternative sites, the Court clarified that the State must first apply its mind to site suitability before initiating SIA, a step that was found to have been formally undertaken in 2017. However, this did not cure the fundamental defect regarding land extent. On the allegation of colourable exercise of power, the Court consciously refrained from recording a final finding, holding that such determination is premature unless the State conclusively establishes that 2570 acres is genuinely required. The Court cautioned that insistence on acquiring double the minimum requirement may verge upon fraud on power, if left unjustified. Ultimately, the Court held that the acquisition proceedings were vitiated by a fatal flaw in the decision-making process, not merely the decision itself, and set aside the SIA report, Expert Group report, and government orders. The State was directed to restart the entire process, ensuring strict compliance with the statutory requirement of limiting acquisition to the absolute bare minimum, and the Court strongly recommended inclusion of adequate technical experts in future SIA teams.