IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 630 of 2010(C)
1. SUNIL P. MANI, AGED 41,
... Petitioner
2. ULAHANNAN ABRAHAM, S/O. ABRAHAM,
3. ULAHANNAN VARGHES, AGED 68 YEARS,
4. RAJAN, S/O. PAPPAN, AGED 40 YEARS,
5. P.N. MOHANAN, S/O. NARAYANAN,
Vs
1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
... Respondent
2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
3. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, MOOVATTUPUZHA,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.GEORGE VARGHESE
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :08/01/2010
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J
.......................
W.P.(C).630/2010
.......................
Dated this the 8th day of January, 2010
JUDGMENT
1. Petitioners are aggrieved by the alignment fixed for the
M.V.I.P Canal. According to the petitioners, in 2006,
respondents conducted a survey for fixing the alignment of
the Canal and if the Canal is constructed on the basis of the
survey so conducted, it will result in the acquisition of the
property of the petitioners as well. According to the
petitioners, in order to avoid such acquisition and to avoid
consequent damage to their property they filed Exts.P7 and
P10 representations. It is stated that even though such
representations have been received, respondents have not
considered the representations. Essentially the grievance of
the petitioners is against the alignment fixed on survey for
the purpose of land acquisition in connection with the
M.V.I.P Canal. This Court does not have the expertise to
decide on the desirability or technical feasibility of a
particular alignment fixed by professional, having expertise
in the filed. This Court can interfere only in a case such as
this only where extreme arbitrariness or established
W.P.(C).630/2010
2
malafides are made out. No such vitiating circumstances
have been made out in the writ petition. Therefore, I do
not think that this Court should exercise its power in this
case.
Writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
ANTONY DOMINIC,
Judge
mrcs