ORDER 1. IN THIS APPEAL, THE CONTROVERSY RELATES TO THE RATE OF INTEREST TO BE PAID IN REGARD TO THE SURPLUS LANDS UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE TAMIL NADU LAND REFORMS (FIXATION OF CEILING ON LAND) ACT, 1961. THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE C OF THE HIGH COURT FIXED THE RATE OF INTEREST @ 12% PER ANNUM. THE DIVISION BENCH, IN AN APPEAL AGAINST THAT ORDER, FIXED THE RATE OF INTEREST @ 4% INSTEAD OF 12%. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE DIVISION BENCH OF THE HIGH COURT, THIS APPEAL IS FILED. 2. AT THE HEARING, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT POINTED OUT THAT IN D A SIMILAR MATTER, THIS COURT IN (AUTHORISED OFFICER, LAND REFORMS V. B. SARASWATHI AMMAL1) DID NOT INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER FIXING RATE OF INTEREST @ 18% PER ANNUM ON ACCOUNT OF DELAY IN MAKING THE PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION. IT IS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE RESPONDENTS HAVE ALREADY PAID INTEREST @ 12% PER ANNUM, AS ORDERED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN THE YEAR 1988. NOW THE RESPONDENTS ARE TRYING TO RECOVER THE AMOUNT OF INTEREST SO PAID @ 12%. 3. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS SUBMITTED THAT AS PER RULE 4 OF THE TAMIL NADU LAND REFORMS RULES, 1966, THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE DIVISION BENCH IS CORRECT. 4. TAKING NOTE OF THE FACT THAT THE AMOUNT IS ALREADY PAID @ 12% TO THE APPELLANT AS EARLY AS IN THE YEAR 1988 AND HAVING REGARD TO THE PECULIAR FACTS OF THIS CASE, WE DO NOT THINK IT NECESSARY TO EXAMINE THE VALIDITY OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER CONSIDERING THE EFFECT OF RULE 4, ETC. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT MAY NOT BE JUST AND APPROPRIATE FOR THE RESPONDENTS TO RECOVER THE AMOUNT ALREADY PAID TO THE APPELLANT @ 12% PER ANNUM TOWARDS INTEREST. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY AND DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL. 5. NO COSTS.