Court finds failure to prove acquisition of absolute bare-minimum land required, orders fresh Social Impact Assessment and appraisal under Right to Fair Compensation Act
In a significant judgment dated 19 December 2025, the Kerala High Court, presided over by Justice C. Jayachandran, quashed the notifications and reports related to the land acquisition for the Sabarimala Greenfield Airport Project under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter, the 2013 Act). The court allowed the writ petition filed by Ayana Charitable Trust, which challenged the government’s acquisition proceedings on the grounds of non-compliance with mandatory provisions of the 2013 Act, specifically regarding the acquisition of only the "absolute bare-minimum" extent of land necessary for the project.
The acquisition involved a vast area of approximately 2570 acres, primarily consisting of the Cheruvally Estate owned by the petitioners. The petitioners contended that the acquisition was a "colourable exercise of power" with a predetermined intent to dispossess them, and that the acquisition process failed to adhere to the statutory mandate of minimal land acquisition and proper evaluation of alternatives.
The court examined the statutory scheme of the 2013 Act, emphasizing its preamble’s objective to ensure a humane, participative, and transparent acquisition process causing the least disturbance to landowners, and guaranteeing just compensation and rehabilitation. It detailed the mandatory steps under Sections 4, 7, and 8 of the Act, including the Social Impact Assessment (S.I.A.) study, appraisal by an Expert Group, and government examination before issuing acquisition notifications under Section 11.
A critical issue was whether the reports and decisions complied with Section 4(4)(d), Section 7(5)(b), and Section 8(1)(c) of the 2013 Act, which require that only the absolute bare-minimum extent of land necessary for the project be acquired. The court found that the S.I.A. report (Ext.P45), the Expert Group appraisal (Ext.P47), and the government order (Ext.P48) failed to satisfactorily justify the acquisition of 2570 acres, which is more than double the minimum land requirement of 1200 acres indicated by the Airports Authority of India’s standards for a greenfield airport suitable for large aircraft operations.
The court noted that the S.I.A. report merely stated that "the least amount of land is being acquired" without providing any technical or reasoned explanation correlating the land extent to the project’s actual needs or future expansion plans. The Expert Group had relied solely on the S.I.A. report without independent evaluation, and the government order did not address the statutory requirement at all.
Regarding alternate sites, the court interpreted Section 4(4)(e) strictly, concluding that the S.I.A. team’s duty is only to verify whether alternate land acquisition had already been considered and found not feasible by the appropriate government, not to independently assess alternate sites. The court found that this requirement was met in the present case.
The petitioners’ allegation of fraud on power-claiming a predetermined government intent to acquire their land, supported by historical attempts and litigation-was acknowledged but left undecided. The court opined that a final conclusion on fraud or colourable exercise of power depends on establishing the genuine minimum land requirement. If the government proves bona fide need for 2570 acres, the fraud claim fails; if not, it gains merit.
Consequently, the court quashed the notifications and reports to the extent they failed to comply with the statutory mandate of limiting acquisition to the absolute bare-minimum. It directed the government to restart the process, including conducting a fresh S.I.A. study focusing on the minimum land requirement, followed by appraisal and government examination as per the 2013 Act. The court also advised the government to include technical experts knowledgeable about airport projects in the S.I.A. study team to facilitate better decision-making.
This judgment underscores the judiciary’s insistence on strict compliance with the 2013 Act’s provisions, particularly in large infrastructural projects affecting private landowners, reinforcing the principle that land acquisition must be carefully justified, minimal, and transparent.
Bottom Line:
Acquisition of land under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 must be limited to the absolute bare-minimum extent needed for the project; failure to independently assess and justify this requirement vitiates the acquisition process.
Statutory provision(s): Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Sections 4(1), 4(4)(d), 4(4)(e), 5, 6, 7(2), 7(4), 7(5)(b), 8(1)(c), 8(2), 11(1), 15; Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Compensation, Rehabilitation and Resettlement and Development Plan) Rules, 2015 - Rule 12(3)(c), 12(3)(d), 12(5)
Ayana Charitable Trust v. State of Kerala, (Kerala) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2825287
