UNION OF INDIA ATTOMIC ENERGY DIVISION THROUGH ITS ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTOR HYDERABAD Vs. R KARTHIKAI RAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Union of India, Attomic Energy Division, Hyderabad has filed this Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the interim orders passed in I.A. No. 7 of 1999 in O.S. No. 2 of 1999 (I.A. No. 127 of 1999 in O.S. No. 32 of 1999), by the Principal District Judge, Tuticorin.

(2.) BRIEF facts are as follows: The Union of India had issued a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (in short as ?the Act?) during the year 1989 for acquiring 1158 acres of land in Pazhayakayal village, Srivapkuntam Taluk, Thoothukudi District for the purpose of setting up a new Zirconium and Titanium Sponge Plant After due enquiry as contemplated under the Act, possession of the land was handed over to the Union of India and thereafter various awards-were passed, awarding compensation to the owners of the lands. From year 1990 or so, the Union of India was in possession of the property including the trees thereon. It is also stated that the Union of India have commenced the work of setting up of a new plant and raising of a compound wall in and around the lands so acquired. While so, the respondents numbering 15 filed O.S. No. 215 of 1998 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Tuticorin for a permanent injunction, restraining the petitioner herein from cutting and removing the trees standing in the plaint schedule property. The Interlocutory Application No. 1054 of 1998 taken out by the respondents was dismissed on 8.1.1999. As against the said order made in the said Interlocutory, Application, the respondents preferred a C.M.A. No. 3 of 1999 before the Principal District Court, Tuticorin on 11.1.1999 but no orders were made thereon.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the respondents conceded the suppression of material facts in the earlier suit by the respondents before the Court below, while obtaining interim orders. However, according to learned counsel for the respondents, the cause of action in the latest suit is' totally different from that of the earlier one and the relief in the earlier suit also differs from that of the relief in the later suit. He further submitted that in the award enquiry, the officers concerned have clarified that the respondents have every right of cutting and removing the trees in the schedule mentioned property. The respondents have fairly admitted their guilty of non-mentioning of the facts in the earlier suit before the Court below at the time of obtaining - interim orders, but such non-mentioning of material facts before the Court below was not intentional. Further, according to the respondents, it was only a mistake and they do not want to put the blame on anybody other than themselves.