Kerala High Court orders status quo on Cheruvally Estate Acquisition for Sabarimala Airport

The Kerala High Court on Thursday ordered status quo with respect to the the acquisition of "Cheruvally Estate" in Kottayam for the Sabarimala Greenfield Airport development. [Ayana Charitable Trust & Ors v State of Kerala & Ors]..Justice Viju Abraham directed the State authorities to refrain from taking any further steps related to the acquisition of property under the government notification passed under Section 11(1) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act) for a period of two months."Pending consideration of the writ petitions, there will be an interim order directing the official respondents not to take any further steps pursuant to Ext.P43 notification, issued under Section 11(1) produced in W.P.(C) No.13775 of 2024, for a period of 2 months. It is also ordered that the petitioners and respondents in both the writ petitions shall maintain the status quo in respect of the property, which is the subject matter of Ext.P43 notification," the Court said..The order was passed on a petition moved by Ayana Charitable Trust challenging various notifications issued by the State government for the proposed acquisition of the estate and the under the provisions of the Act.The land in question, a rubber estate popularly known as ‘Cheruvally Estate’, was purchased by the petitioner in 2005.Subsequently, a slew of cases ensued between the petitioner and the State government over the title of the land.While so, the government issued notifications under the Act for its acquisition for the Sabarimala airport..The senior counsel for the petitioners argued that the government resorted to new tactics for obtaining the property by invoking the provisions of the Act. He added that the notification issued under Section 11(1) of the Act did not comply with the provisions outlined in that Section and in Rule 18 of the Kerala Rules, 2015 (Rules), both dealing with publication of preliminary notification. The petitioners raised concerns about procedural violations like, assignment of the social impact assessment study, to a government agency as being violative of Rule 10 (2) of the Rules. Rule 10(2) provides that the social impact assessment unit with any links to the government or having any conflict of interest should not be entrusted with the study for any acquisition. Pertinently, it was also submitted that the government overlooked alternative feasible locations and ignored objections regarding social and environmental impacts, including the loss of vital resources and holy sites..However, counsel for the respondents submitted that the writ petition was not maintainable as the petitioners had sought remedy under Section 15 of the Act to file objections, which were set to be reviewed and added that the issue raised on the assignment of the social impact assessment study couldn't be considered as an objection under Section 15 of the Act..After taking into account the arguments, the Court noted that the petitioners do have the right to approach the court when land acquisition proceedings have been initiated against them by the government..It, therefore, issued notices to the respondents and granted an interim order directing the State not to take further steps pursuant to the notifications issued by it..The petitioners were represented by Senior Advocate Amit Sibal and advocate Dhiraj Philip along with advocates Rishikesh Haridas and Shijimol M Mathew.Additional Advocate General K P Jayachandran and advocate S Chandrashekharan Nair appeared for the State..[Read Order]