IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 1ST MARCH 2010 / 10TH PHALGUNA 1931 WA.No. 343 of 2010() -------------------- APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS ------------------------- 1. SUNIL P.MANI, S/O.MANI, AGED 41, PUTHOOR CHENGAMATTATHIL HOUSE, MULAKULAM VILLAGE, PERUVA.P.O, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. ULAHANNAN ABRAHAM, S/O.ABRAHAM, AGED 63, CHENGAMATTATHIL HOUSE, MULAKULAM VILLAGE, PERUVA.P.O, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 3. ULAHANNAN VARGHESE, AGED 68 YEARS, CHENGAMATTATHIL HOUSE, MULAKULAM VILLAGE, PERUVA.P.O, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 4. RAJAN, S/O.PAPPAN, AGED 40 YEARS, PADINJAREKKERIMATTOM, MULAKULAM VILLAGE, KARIKODE DESOM, KARIKODE.P.O, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 5. P.N.MOHANAN, S/O.NARAYANAN, AGED 50 YEARS, POOVATHINKAL HOUSE, KARIKODE.P.O, KARIKODE DESOM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JOSEPH GEORGE RESPONDENT/RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, KOTTAYAM. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MOOVATTUPUZHA VALLEY IRRIGATION PROJECT DIVISION, PIRAVOM. 3. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, MOOVATTUPUZHA VALLEY IRRIGATION PROJECT DIVISION, KURUPPAMTHARA, KOTTAYAM. BY SR.G.P. SRI.BENJAMIN PAUL THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMAN, AG. C.J. & C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. .................................................................... Writ Appeal No.343 of 2010 .................................................................... Dated this the 1st day of March, 2010. JUDGMENT Raman, Ag. C.J. Appellants are aggrieved by judgment of the learned Single Judge. They filed the Writ Petition interalia contending that though against acquisition of their residential building Exts.P7 and P10 representations have been made, they have not been considered and disposed of. The learned Single Judge observed that essentially the grievance of the appellants is against the alignment fixed on survey for the purpose of land acquisition. The desirability or technical feasibility of a particular alignment fixed by professional is not a matter for this Court to consider as the court has no expertise. In the absence of any malafides, the learned Single Judge declined to interfere in the matter. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any ground to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge. 2 However, dismissal of the Writ Petition will not stand in the way of the authority disposing of the representations. P.R.RAMAN Acting Chief Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge pms