Why 2,570 acres? High Court quashes land acquisition notification; take off from Sabarimala will remain a dream

KOCHI: The wait for the Kerala government's dream project of Sabarimala Airport will continue with the cancellation of the land acquisition notification by the High Court. The High Court single bench has cancelled the notification to acquire 2,570 acres of land, including Cheruvally Estate near Erumeli and the surrounding areas.

The order can be appealed to the division bench, but it is unlikely to be resolved during the tenure of this government. Justice C Jayachandran's action was based on the assessment that it has not been scientifically proven that so much land is necessary. The court rejected the government's argument that so much land is needed for future development.

A new social impact study should be conducted in accordance with the provisions of the law to determine the exact amount of land (bare minimum) for the project. The court also directed the government to consider including experts with technical knowledge and experience in projects such as airports and dams in the study team.

The Social Impact Study Report prepared by the Social Impact Assessment Unit of Bharat Mata College, Thrikkakara, the Expert Committee Report, and the preliminary notification issued by the government on June 18, 2020 based on the study reports were revoked.

The Ayana Charitable Trust (formerly Gospel for Asia), headquartered in Manjadi, Thiruvalla, and its managing trustee, Sini Punnoose, approached the High Court against the acquisition of the estate. The petition was filed alleging that the estate was being acquired using multiple orders and unscientific study reports.

Only 1,200 acres needed

• The court pointed out that 1,200 acres of land is sufficient even for airports that handle large aircraft, so the amount of land acquired may be less. The court pointed out the Airports Authority of India's estimate.
• According to the Land Acquisition Act of 2013, only the minimum amount of land required can be acquired.
• The court found that the Social Impact Assessment Unit, the expert committee and the government failed to clarify the purpose of the 2,570 acres of land.
• The reports did not clearly state what development is being targeted and how much land is required for it.