The court upheld that site selection for the water project by authorities, based on technical assessment, was valid despite appellants' objections.

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 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.

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 14^th 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 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 consid