Government must appropriately calculate and pay interest on compensation amounts in accordance with established legal principles, prioritizing interest over principal in land acquisition cases.

ORDER :

The Civil Revision Petition Nos.1070, 1071 and 1072 and 2235 of 2024 are filed challenging the orders passed by the Principal Subordinate Court, (viz., Executing Court), in the Execution Petitions filed by the decree holders in the Land Acquisition Proceedings, whereby and whereupon, it is held that the amount deposited by the respondent-Government is proper and appropriation indicated in Form D is correct. Whereas, challenging the findings of the Executing Court in holding that the respondent-Government is liable to pay a sum of Rs.17,97,034/-, Rs.12,40,407/-, Rs.10,79,591/- and Rs.13,89,083 in E.P.Nos.199 of 2020, 8 of 2014, 212 of 2020 and 194 of 2020 respectively, C.RP.(NPD)Nos.284, 285, 287 and 288 of 2025 are filed by the respondent-judgment debtors.

2. As the issue involved in all these Revision Petitions are interconnected and the parties are one and the same, they were taken up together, heard and disposed of by this Common Order. However, for the sake of easy reference and understanding, the landowners shall be hereinafter referred to as 'decree holders' and the judgment debtors, viz., respondent-SIPCOT (State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu), the Land Acquisition Officer and the Government be referred to as such throughout this Common Order.

3. For the sake of brevity, C.R.P.(NPD) No.1070 of 2024 is taken as a lead case and the facts stated therein in brief are as follows:-

i) The land owned by one Venktaesh was sought to be acquired by the Government under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter, referred to as 'the Act') for the purpose of Hosur Phase II Expansion II Scheme of SIPCOT. Accordingly, a Notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act was issued on 25.08.2000 and the land was acquired. The Land Acquisition Officer passed an award, computing the value of the land at the rate of Rs.l,00,000/- per acre against which, the landowner sought for a reference for enhancement of compensation in L.A.O.P.No.69 of 2007. The https://www.mhc.tn.goRv.einf/juedrisence Court enhanced the compensation to Rs.8,00,000/- per acre with solatium and other costs vide order dated 13.11.2009. Based on the same, the decree-holder instituted Execution Proceedings Simultaneously, the respondent-SIPCOT preferred Appeal in A.S.No.448 of 2010 challenging the order of the Reference Court.

ii) During the pendency of the Appeal, the respondent- Government was directed to deposit 50% of the enhanced amount and it appears that the said amount of 50% was deposited before the Trial Court on 22.08.2011. Later, the said Appeal was dismissed by this Court vide a Judgement and Decree dated 06.07.2015, and the Special Leave Petition preferred against the said dismissal, was also dismissed vide order dated 15.05.2018. Thereafter, balance 50% of the compensation amount along with interest was deposited before the Subordinate Court into the credit of the Land Acquisition Original Petition. However, the decree holder filed one more Execution Petitions seeking to reopen and re-agitate the entire calculation including the sums already deposited and claimed interest on the principal sum itself.

iii) The Executing Court passed orders in the Execution Petitions. Challenging the same, the present Revision Petitions are filed both by the landowners/decree holders and the respondents/judgment debtors.

4. Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned Senior Counsel for the revision petitioners/decree holders would mainly contend that it is a trite law that the Government must pay the amount awarded with interest thereon at the rate of 9% p.a. for a period of one year; that if such compensation or any part thereof is not paid or deposited within a period of one year from the date on which possession is taken, the Government is liable to pay interest at the rate of 15% p.a from the date of expiry of the said period of one year on the amount of compensation, which has not been paid or deposited; that in the present case, possession was taken on 12.11.2006 a