IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 8TH JANUARY 2010 / 18TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 630 of 2010(C) ------------------------ PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. SUNIL P. 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 VARGHES, AGED 68 YEARS, CHENGAMATTATHIL HOUSE, MULAKULAM VILLAGE PERUVA P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 4. RAJAN, S/O. PAPPAN, AGED 40 YEARS, PADINJAREKKERIMATTOM, MULAKULAM VILLAGE, KARIKKODE 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.P.GEORGE VARGHESE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 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. GP K.R.DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 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