IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 4TH JANUARY 2010 / 14TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 37672 of 2009(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- KUNJUMON DANIEL, AGED 51 YEARS, S/O.DANIEL.G, USHUS, ELANGAMANGALAM, ENATHU, ADOOR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI. K.SHAJ SRI.SAJJU.S RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD ROADS DIVISION, PATHANAMTHITTA. 3. THE ASST.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD ROADS, ADOOR. 4. BABU, S/O.KUTTAPPAN NAIR, GANESH MANDIRAM, PUTHUMALA.P.O, EZHAMKULAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SHRI P.NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C). No.37672/2009-D ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 4th day of January, 2010 J U D G M E N T Aggrieved by Ext.P3, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing this writ petition. The petitioner claims to be in possession and enjoyment of property of 11.70 Ares of land comprised in Survey No.487/1, Block 18 of Enathu Village. 2. The property is said to be situated in the south of Pattazhy-Enathu P.W.D road. The second respondent has tendered for the execution of a P.W.D contract work for the construction of a culvert and drainage in the Pattazhy- Enathu road near Kalamala Masjid to facilitate the free flow of water from the Northern Ela situated in the north of Pattazhy-Enathu road. 3. The petitioner had filed W.P.(C).No.11475/2009, aggrieved by the delay in consideration of his grievances raised in Ext.P1. Apparently, the grievance raised in the writ petition was regarding the delay in completion of the tendered work, namely, that the drainage was not properly constructed. This Court directed the competent officer to take a decision in the matter. Ext.P3 is the reply given to the petitioner pursuant to the direction issued by this Court in Ext.P2 Judgment. The petitioner is presently aggrieved by Ext.P3. W.P.(C). No.37672/2009 -:2:- 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in Ext.P3, the request of the petitioner that land acquisition proceedings may be initiated and to pay compensation, has not been considered at all. 5. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the reply given as per Ext.P3, it is upto him to move any of the higher authorities, and with liberty to do so, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms