Facts
The petitioner, the claimant-decree holder in execution proceedings arising from L.A.O.P. No. 1 of 2004, challenged the District Judge, Karaikal’s interim order directing payment of Rs. 33,64,42,333.47 with interest at 15% per annum from 1 September 2025.
Source reference: p. 1, para. 1The underlying land-acquisition compensation had been enhanced by the High Court in A.S. No. 812 of 2009 to Rs. 49,500 per acre for 694.50 acres.
Source reference: p. 6, para. 6At the High Court’s direction, both parties filed calculation memos.
Source reference: pp. 2–6, paras. 3–5The petitioner sought correction of the execution calculation and payment of the amount it claimed remained due.
Source reference: p. 1, prayer; pp. 7–9, paras. 7–9Issues
1. Whether the amount payable under the compensation award, including applicable interest and after accounting for prior payments, had been correctly calculated in the execution proceedings.
Source reference: pp. 6–9, paras. 6–92. Whether the District Judge’s interim order should be set aside and the respondents directed to pay the balance found due.
Source reference: p. 9, para. 9Law Applied
The revision was brought under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Source reference: p. 1, prayerIn determining the balance payable, the Court applied the compensation rate fixed in A.S. No. 812 of 2009, together with the specified components of solatium, additional market value, and statutory interest at 9% for the first year and 15% thereafter.
Source reference: pp. 6–8, paras. 6–8The judgment does not identify a particular provision of the Land Acquisition Act or cite any precedent as the basis for these calculations.
Source reference: pp. 6–9, paras. 6–9Reasoning
The Court calculated compensation on the full enhanced rate of Rs. 49,500 per acre, rather than merely on the difference between that rate and the rate previously awarded.
Source reference: pp. 6–8, paras. 6–8It added 30% solatium and 12% additional market value for the specified 263-day period, then accounted for the interim award payment, the further payment after the final award, and statutory interest on the outstanding balance.
Source reference: pp. 6–8, paras. 6–8The Court rejected the respondents’ calculation because it used only the difference in rates and failed to include the compensation already payable at the earlier rate.
Source reference: p. 8, para. 8After crediting the Rs. 4,80,35,751 deposited on 26 October 2022 and adjusting the subsequent remittance, it found Rs. 61,56,674 payable as of 1 July 2026.
Source reference: pp. 8–9, paras. 8–9Holding
The Court allowed the revision and set aside the District Judge’s order dated 9 September 2025.
It directed the respondents to pay Rs. 61,56,674 within four weeks of receiving the order; payment within that period would constitute full and final satisfaction of the award, without further interest.
Source reference: p. 9, para. 9If payment was not made within the stipulated period, the petitioner could pursue future interest and any remaining unpaid amount through execution, and the Executing Court was directed to dispose of the execution petition within six weeks if required.
Source reference: p. 9, para. 9No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.
Source reference: p. 9, para. 9Acts & Sections Cited
1 provisions across 1 statute referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.
Code of Civil Procedure, 19081
Original Court PDF
M/s. Sagar BuildersvsThe Union Of India
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
