M/s. Sagar Builders vs The Union Of India

THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Order reserved on : 23.09.2026 Order pronounced on : 16.10.2026
CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI
CRP.No.3778 of 2026
& CMP.No.16395 of 2026
M/s.Sagar Builders,
Represented by its Proprietor Vimal Chand
Karaikal. .. Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Union of India,
represented by the Secretary,
Revenue Department,
Government of Puducherry.
2.The Deputy Collector (Revenue) cum
Land Acquisition Officer, Karaikal. .. Respondents
Prayer : Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of CPC, to set aside the interim
order in E.P.No.32 of 2021 in L.A.O.P.No.01 of 2004 dated 09.09.2025, on the file of the
learned District Judge, Karaikal and consequently, to direct the respondents to pay a sum
of Rs.13,63,45,119.40/- to the petitioner.
For Petitioner : Mr.Arun C.Mohan
for Mr.T.Prabhu
For Respondents : Mr.P.S.Kothandaraman
Government Pleader (Puducherry)
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 07:06:52 pm )

ORDER
The claimant-decree holder in E.P.No.32 of 2021 in LAOP.No.1 of 2004 is the
revision petitioner, aggrieved by the order of the learned District Judge, Karaikal, dated
09.09.2025, directing the respondents- judgment debtors to pay Rs.33,64,42,33.47/-,
together with interest at 15% per annum from 01.09.2025.
2.I have heard Mr.Arun C.Mohan, for Mr.T.Prabhu, learned counsel for the
revision petitioner and Mr.P.S.Kothandaraman, learned Government Pleader
(Puducherry) for the respondents.
3.After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, noticing that the adjudication
in the revision petition would require proper calculations to be made, I directed both the
learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the respondents to file their detailed
calculation memos.
4.The petitioner-claimant filed a calculation memo dated 15.09.2026. The same is
scanned and extracted hereunder:
2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 07:06:52 pm )

3
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 07:06:52 pm )

4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 07:06:52 pm )

5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 07:06:52 pm )

5.Similarly, the learned Government Pleader (Puducherry) for the respondents
also filed a calculation memo dated 23.09.2026, which is scanned and extracted
hereunder:
6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 07:06:52 pm )

6.There is no dispute with regard to the compensation awarded by this Court in
A.S.No.812 of 2009 by judgment dated 22.01.2020, awarding Rs.49,500/- per acre. The
land which is subject matter of acquisition is 694.50 acres and therefore, the total
compensation payable in terms of the award of this Court works out to Rs.3,43,77,750/-.
It is not in dispute that the petitioner is entitled to solatium at 30% on the market value
of Rs.3,43,77,750/-, which works out to Rs.1,03,13,325/-. The petitioner is also entitled
to additional market value at 12% per annum for 263 days that is from 15.03.2002 up to
02.12.2002 on the market value of Rs.3,43,77,750/-. On this head of additional market
value, the petitioner is entitled to further Rs.29,72,498/-. The total amount, therefore,
due and payable to the petitioner is Rs.4,76,63,573/-.
7.Admittedly, in and by an interim award dated 16.09.2002, the petitioner has paid
Rs.2,78,40,149/-. The balance outstanding payable as on 16.09.2002 is therefore
Rs.1,98,23,424/-. The petitioner is entitled to statutory interest at the rate of 9% per
annum on the outstanding amount from 16.09.2002 to 31.07.2003 (319 days), which
works out to Rs.15,59,261/- and adding the said interest component, the outstanding
amount payable by the respondent is Rs.2,13,82,685/-. Since a final award was passed
on 31.07.2003 and a further amount of Rs.73,73,635/- was paid to the petitioner, the
unpaid amount boils down to Rs.1,40,09,050/-. The petitioner is entitled to statutory
7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 07:06:52 pm )

interest at 9% per annum on the said Rs.1,40,09,050/- for 46 days remaining in the first
year that is on 01.08.2003 to 15.09.2003, which works out to Rs.1,58,897/-. Adding this
to the remaining unpaid balance outstanding, the net amount payable is
Rs.1,41,67,947/-. After the period of first year, the petitioner is entitled to statutory
interest at 15% per annum on Rs.1,40,09,050/- from 16.09.2003 to 26.10.2022, which
works out to Rs.4,01,84,863/- (I am also rejecting the erroneous approach adopted by
the petitioner while calculating the interest payable at 15% per annum from the second
year onwards on the unpaid compensation amount since the petitioner has already
included the interest component at 9% per annum, payable for the first year and has
taken it into account to arrive at interest payable at 15% per annum from the second year
onwards). The total compensation therefore due to the petitioner is Rs.5,43,52,810/-.
8.Admittedly, a sum of Rs.4,80,35,751/- has been paid/deposited by the Land
Acquisition Officer on 26.10.2022 and the net unpaid compensation amount is therefore
Rs.63,17,059/-. It is needless to state that on this unpaid compensation, the petitioner is
entitled to statutory interest at 15% per annum from 26.10.2022 to 30.06.2026, which
works out to Rs.34,86,497/-. After adjustment of partial remittance made by the
respondent vide TDR.No.T26/HTDP 0701343 dated to the tune of Rs.36,46,882.00/-,
the balance amount payable as on 01.07.2026 is Rs.61,56,674/-. The calculation filed by
the respondents is flawed, for more than one reason. Firstly, while arriving at the market
8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 07:06:52 pm )

value, the respondents have merely adopted the difference in rate per acre awarded by
the Land Acquisition Officer and this Court, forgetting for a moment that the award was
enhanced to Rs.49,500/- and therefore, the rate originally fixed by the Land Acquisition
Officer and confirmed by the Reference Court was also due and payable to the revision
petitioner. Therefore, the entire calculation proceeding on the difference in rate alone is
clearly fallacious and no credence can be given to the said calculation arrived at by the
respondents.
9.In the light of the above, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the order
dated 09.09.2025 in E.P.No.32 of 2021 in L.A.O.P.No.01 of 2004, on the file of the
learned District Judge, Karaikal is set aside. The petitioners are entitled to
Rs.61,56,674/- and since this amount is payable as of 01.07.2026, the respondents are
directed to directly pay the said amount, without any further delay, within a period of
four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on such payment, it shall
be received in full and final settlement and satisfaction of the award amount, without
insisting on further and future interest component. However, if the respondents do not
pay the amount of Rs.61,56,674/- arrived at herein above, within the period stipulated
herein above, then it is needless to state that the petitioners are not obligated to waive
their right to claim future interest and it shall be open to the petitioner to proceed to
claim the same as well, along with the remaining amounts that are due and remain
9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 07:06:52 pm )

unpaid by proceeding with the execution petition, in accordance with law. In the event of
the same becoming necessary, the Executing Court shall dispose of the execution
petition, within a period of six weeks, in accordance with law.. No costs. Connected
Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
16.10.2026
Neutral Citation Case : Yes / No
Speaking / Non-speaking order
Index : Yes/No
ata
To
1.The District Judge, Karaikal.
2.The Union of India,
represented by the Secretary,
Revenue Department,
Government of Puducherry.
3.The Deputy Collector (Revenue) cum
Land Acquisition Officer, Karaikal.
10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 07:06:52 pm )

P.B.BALAJI. J,
ata
Pre-delivery order made in
CRP.No.3778 of 2026
16.10.2026
11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 07:06:52 pm )