Boby Abraham vs State Of Kerala on 30 January, 2026

W.A.No.2430 of 2025


                               : 1 :-
                                               2026:KER:5251


              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                              PRESENT

     THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI

                                  &

           THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. V. BALAKRISHNAN

    FRIDAY, THE 30TH    DAY OF JANUARY 2026/10TH   MAGHA, 1947

                        WA NO. 2430 OF 2025

      (AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 09.09.2025 IN WP(C)
NO.22922 OF 2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA)
APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:

     1       BOBY ABRAHAM
             AGED 49 YEARS
             S/O. C.A.ABRAHAM, V.VANGANAKUNNEL HOUSE, DOOR
             NO.I/282, THIRUMARADI GRAMA PANCHYATH, MANNATHUR
             P.O, ERNAKULAM., PIN - 686667

     2       SHAJI S
             AGED 52 YEARS
             S/O. SIVARAMAN, AGED 52 YEARS, WARD NO. III/70,
             THEATRE JUNCTION, THEATRE ROAD, KUZHIKKATTU,
             THIRUMARADI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, MANNATHUR
             P.O,ERNAKULAM., PIN - 686667


             BY ADVS.
             SRI.DINESH R.SHENOY
             SMT.SHANTHIPRIYA D. SHENOY
             SHRI.MOHAMED SHALI NAMSHAD




RESPONDENT/RESPONDENTS:

     1       STATE OF KERALA
             REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, WATER
             RESOURCE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
             THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN - 695001
 W.A.No.2430 of 2025


                               : 2 :-
                                               2026:KER:5251

     2       THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
             ERNAKULAM, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD P.O., PIN -
             682030

     3       THE THIRUMARADI GRAMA PANCHAYATH
             VELLIYADATH, THIRUMARADI P.O, ERNAKULAM REPRESENTED
             BY ITS SECRETARY., PIN - 686662

     4       THE KERALA WATER AUTHORITY
             JALA BHAVAN, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,,
             REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR., PIN - 695033

     5       THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
             KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, MUVATTUPUZHA SUB DIVISION,
             THOTTINGALPEEDIKA, MUVATTUPUZHA., PIN - 686661

     6       THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
             MUVATTUPUZHA, O/O. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
             MUVATTUPUZHA., PIN - 686673

     7       CHACKO SKARIA
             S/O. LATE SKARIA, ARITHADATHIL MANNATHUR KARA,
             THIRUMARADI VILLAGE,ERNAKULAM., PIN - 686679

     8       MARIYAMMA
             W/O.CHACKO, ARITHADATHIL - MANNATHUR KARA,
             THIRUMARADI VILLAGE.ERNAKULAM., PIN - 686667

     9       CLINT PAUL
             S/O. PAUL P V, PALLIPARAMBIL HOUSE, VARIKKOLI
             P.O.,PUTHENCRUZ, ERNAKULAM., PIN - 682308

     0       PAUL P.V
             S/O. VARKEY ITOOP, PALLIPARAMBIL HOUSE, VARIKKOLI
             P.O, PUTHENCRUZ,ERNAKULAM., PIN - 682308

     11      BEENA PAUL
             W/O. PAUL P.V, PALLIPARAMBIL HOUSE, VARIKKOLI
             P.O.,PUTHENCRUZ,ERNAKULAM., PIN - 682308

     12      BINDHU .P .A
             D/O. ABRAHAM, THEVARMADATHIL, MANNATHOOR .P.O,
             THIRUMARADI VILLAGE, MANNATHOOR,ERNAKULAM., PIN -
             686062

     13      M.M.GEORGE
             S/O. MATHAI, MANKUDIYIL HOUSE, THIRUMARADI P.O.,
 W.A.No.2430 of 2025


                                       : 3 :-
                                                            2026:KER:5251

             THIRUMARADI,ERNAKULAM., PIN - 686662

     14      AJI ABRAHAM
             S/O. ABRAHAM, MANJAKADAMBIL, VETTIMOOD,
             KAKKOOR,ERNAKULAM., PIN - 686662


             BY ADVS.
             SHRI.JOBY JOSEPH(R9 TO R11)
             SHRI.BABY THOMAS
             SRI.INDRAJITH S KAIMAL
             SHRI.ALBERTHOVE FRANCIS.M.G.
             SHRI.K.K.MOHANDAS
             SMT.ALICIA JOSE
             SMT.EHLAS HALEEMA C.K.
             Adv.GEORGE JOHNY SC (R4 & R5)
             ADV.SUNILKUMAR KURIAKOSE GP(R1,R2 & R6)
             ADV.DAISY A.PHILIPOSE (R14)
             ADV.GIGIMON ISSAC,(SC)R3

      THIS     WRIT         APPEAL    HAVING     BEEN   FINALLY    HEARD    ON
21.01.2026,           THE     COURT    ON       30.1.2026    DELIVERED      THE
FOLLOWING:
 W.A.No.2430 of 2025


                                        : 4 :-
                                                               2026:KER:5251




               SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI,
                                   &
                      P.V.BALAKRISHNAN,JJ.
                  -------------------------------------
                       W.A. No. 2430 of 2025
                   ---------------------------------
               Dated this the 30th day of January 2026


                                 JUDGMENT

P.V.BALAKRISHNAN,J

This intra court appeal is filed by the petitioners in W.P.

(C)No.22922/2025 challenging the judgment dated 9.9.2025

passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing their writ petition.

2. The facts in brief, as are necessary for the disposal of this

writ petition, are as follows:

The appellants are permanent residents of the 3 rd respondent

Panchayat, which is facing acute drinking water shortage.

Respondents 1,4 and 5 envisaged a project under the name 'Jal

Jeevan Mission' for a permanent solution to water woes in the 3 rd

respondent Panchayat and it was proposed to construct an

overhead water tank, with 9 lakhs litres capacity at Kolkunnumala

or Mandalam Mala, along with other infrastructure. It is the case of

the appellants that subsequently the authorities decided to

construct the overhead water tank in Mandalam Mala, by

: 5 :-

2026:KER:5251

excluding Kolkunnumala, in the properties of respondents 9 to 11.

It is alleged that the properties of respondents 9 to 11 was thus

identified on the basis of ulterior motives and on the influence of

respondents 13 and 14. According to the appellants, Mandalam

Mala is not at all suitable for construction of the overhead tank and

it is Areethadom Mala which is most suitable and convenient for

construction of the water tank, since it is situated at a higher level.

It is the case of the appellants that respondents 7 and 8 are also

ready to relinquish 20 cents of land for construction of the tank in

Areethadom Mala and the authorities, without considering all these

factors, are proceeding with work. Even though Ext.P8 mass

representation stating all these facts was given by the locals to the

Minister of Irrigation, the same also did not evoke any response.

It is hence the appellants filed the afore writ petition seeking the

following reliefs:

"A) A writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order

or direction directing respondents 1, 2 and 4 to consider and

pass orders on Exhibit P8 representation on its merits, in the

light of Exhibit P7 offer for free relinquishment of land for the

project and the contentions in the above writ petition,

independently after hearing the petitioners also and any

other interested parties, untrammeled by any observations in

Exhibits P2 and P6 judgments.

: 6 :-

2026:KER:5251

B) A writ, order or direction directing respondents 1 to 5 to

keep in abeyance all further proceedings for acquisition of

land on Mandalam mala for the purpose of setting up the

overhead storage reservoir (OHSR) on the Mandalam Mala in

Thirumarady Grama Panchayath till Exhibit P8 representation

is considered and disposed off on merits."

3. The learned single judge, after considering the materials on

record and hearing both sides, dismissed the writ petition.

4. Heard Adv. Dinesh R.Shenoy, the learned counsel

appearing for the appellants, Adv. George Johny, the learned

standing counsel appearing for respondents 4 and 5, Adv.

Sunikumar Kuriakose, the learned senior Government Pleader

appearing for respondents 1, 2 and 6, and Adv.Daisy A.Philipose,

the learned counsel appearing for 14th respondent.

5. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the

authorities have decided to construct the overhead tank in

Mandalam Mala in the property of respondents 9 to 11, on the

basis of influence excreted by respondents 13 and 14 and the

Panchayat. He submitted that Areethadom Mala is the most

suitable and convenient property to construct the overhead tank,

since it is situated at a higher point than Mandalam Mala and will

ensure water supply to the entire Panchayat. He further submitted

: 7 :-

2026:KER:5251

that respondents 7 and 8 are ready to relinquish 20 cents of land

for the purpose of construction of overhead water tank in

Areethadom Mala and considerable money can be saved, if it is

accepted. Hence, he prayed that a direction may be issued to

respondents 1, 2 and 4 to consider Ext.P8 representation filed

stating all these facts.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondents 4,5 and 14

supported the impugned judgment and contended that there are

no grounds to interfere with it. They argued that the place to

construct the reservoir has been identified by the Kerala Water

Authority, after a detailed study conducted by the competent

technical personnel of the Kerala Water Authority and the

appellants, who are not experts, have no say in this matter. They

further submitted that the project is now at an advanced stage and

the attempt of the appellants is only to upset the project in mid-

course.

7. The learned senior Government Pleader appearing for

respondents 1,2 and 6 also supported the submissions made by the

learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5.

8. On an anxious consideration of the rival submissions and

the materials on record, we are of the considered view that there is

: 8 :-

2026:KER:5251

no merit in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the

appellants. As stated earlier, the contention of the appellants is

that Mandalam Mala, the place selected by the Water Authority to

construct the overhead tank is not at all suitable and it is another

place by name Areethadom Mala which is suitable and feasible.

The counter affidavit filed by respondents 4 and 5 clearly goes to

show that the site at Mandalam Mala, has been found as suitable

for construction of the overhead tank on the basis of scientific,

engineering-based and cost-optimized analysis conducted by the

technical personnel of the Kerala Water Authority. It also shows

that the site was fixed after considering several sites including

Kolkunnamala, Karkkaattumala and Areethadom Mala and after

finding that Mandalam Mala is the optimal location. It is discernible

from their counter affidavit that surveys, cost estimates, design,

validation and DPR finalisation have also been conducted and that

the project is at an advanced stage. Be that as it may, most

importantly, it is to be taken note that the appellants are not

experts in this area and, therefore, no much weightage can be

given to their suggestions/opinions. In such circumstances, we

find no ground to interfere with the judgment passed by the

learned Single Judge, declining to grant the relief as sought for by

: 9 :-