IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI THURSDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2010 / 13TH JYAISTHA 1932 RP.No. 318 of 2010 AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.22795/2008 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER / PETITIONER IN WPC SREEKALA RAJMOHAN, D/O.KAMALAKSHI AMMA, PARAKKAL HOUSE,H.NO.XVII/314, PAYYAMBRA ILLAM ROAD,PERUNNA EAST P.O., CHANGANACHERRY. BY ADV. SRI.JOHNSON P.JOHN RESPONDENTS / RESPONDENTS 1. STATE OF KERALA,REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVT. PWD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM. 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD (ROADS DIVISION), KOTTAYAM. 4. THE ASST.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,P.W.D., CHANGANACHERRY, 5. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (L.A), CHANGANACHERRY BYPASS, KOTTAYAM 6. SRI.ABI WILSON,WHITE HOUSE,PERUNNA EAST P.O.,CHANGANACHERRY. 7. SRI.P.GOPALAN NAIR, SHYAMALALAYAM,PERUNNA EAST P.O., 8. SRI.EYO OUSEPH, MANAKKUNNEL, PERUNNA EAST P.O. 9. SMT.REMANI MENON, PUTHIYARA HOUSE, PERUNNA EAST P.O., 10. SRI.JAYAPRAKASH, PADMASREE, PERUNNA EAST P.O., ADDL 10.E.T.SUBRAMANIAN, KUMARAMANGALAM HOUSE (THOPPIL PARAMBIL) PERUNNA EAST P.O.,686102 CHENGANASSERY. ADDL.11.BABU,UNNIYIL, PERUNNA P.O, CHANGANASSERY. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.I.V.PRAMOD SRI.T.KRISHNAN UNNI, Sr. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/06/2010 ALONG WITH R.P.NO.332/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.P.No.318 of 2010 in W.P.(C)No.22795 of 2008 & R.P.No.332 of 2010 in W.A.No.2144 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 3rd day of June 2010 ORDER Basheer, J. These two review petitions are directed against the common judgment by which the above two cases along with another were disposed of on January 13, 2010. 2. Learned senior counsel, who appears for the petitioners, submits that this court had failed to consider the proceedings of the District Survey Superintendent. and also Map III submitted by Kerala Highway Research Institute (KHRI) after conducting survey along with the District Survey Authorities while disposing of the cases. Learned senior counsel further submits that the report of the Advocate Commissioner ought to have been kept in view by the court before disposing of the cases. 3. While dealing with the various contentions raised by the petitioners in the three cases, it was noticed by the court that they wanted the alignment of the bye pass to be changed in such a way as to save their three respective plots. In the judgment we observed thus: “While the petitioner in W.P.No.22795/08 wants to confine the change in alignment to a distance of 100 meters on either side of her property so as to save her residential building from acquisition, the petitioner in W.P.No.13666/09 prays for a R.P.No.318 of 2010 in W.P.(C)No.22795/08 & R.P.No.332 of 2010 in W.A.No.2144 /08 & :: 2 :: direction to the respondents to re-do the proposed alignment and to conduct proper survey of the 4th reach of the bye pass for about 420 meters near to her residence. The grievance of the petitioner in W.A.No.2144/08 is that her residential building could have been saved if only a fresh measurement and survey in respect of the disputed area of about 100 meters on either side of her house is carried out. Apparently these three petitioners are oblivious of the consequences or aftermath of the change in alignment that may follow if a “slight modification” - as they would put it - is made in the alignment when the road reaches their respective properties. Similarly they also do not seem to be bothered about the fresh acquisition proceedings that may have to be initiated on the other side of the road if their respective properties are to be excluded.” 4. It may also be noticed that in paragraph 14 of the judgment it was observed that the voluminous record made available before the court by both sides had been perused by us and the Engineers connected with the project had also assisted us extensively with the aid of a large number of sketches, reports, etc. 5. We have carefully perused the grounds raised in the two review petitions and heard learned senior counsel for the petitioners. 6. The attempt of the petitioners appears to be to persuade us to rehear the cases. The specific contention of the learned senior counsel is R.P.No.318 of 2010 in W.P.(C)No.22795/08 & R.P.No.332 of 2010 in W.A.No.2144 /08 & :: 3 :: that this court should have specifically referred to the report of the KHRI and that of the Advocate Commissioner and direct the authorities to conduct a fresh survey and refix the alignment in the light of the above reports. We are afraid the above contentions are totally beyond the scope and ambit of a review petition as envisaged under law. The cases were disposed of after considering all the relevant materials available on record. There is no merit in any of the grounds urged in the review petition. Therefore, the review petitions are dismissed. A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE jes