ORDER :- Heard Sri Kuncheam Maheshwar Rao and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Arbitration. 2. The Authorized Officer, Land Reforms Tribunal, Anantapur being aggrieved of the order made in LRA No.3/99 on the file of Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Anantapur dated 31.1.2005 had preferred CRP No.3685/2005 under Section 21 of the A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (hereinafter in short referred to as 'the Act' for the purpose of convenience). As against the self-same order being aggrieved of a portion of the order, the claimants also filed CRP No.6002 of 2005. 3. Sri Kuncheam Maheshwar Rao placed strong reliance on the Division Bench decision of this Court in V. Ramachandra Reddy v. Government of A.P., 1995 (3) ALT 203 (DB) and would maintain that in the light of the same, CRP No.3685/2005 filed by the Authorised Officer, Land Reforms Tribunal, Anantapur to be dismissed. Further the learned Counsel also had drawn the attention of this Court to Rule 11(2) of the A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Rules (hereinafter in short referred to 'the Rules' for the purpose .of convenience) and submitted that appropriate directions to be given to revalue and reassess in the light of the aforesaid Rule. 4. On the contrary, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Arbitration would maintain that in the light of the convincing reasons recorded by the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Anantapur, relating to the assessment, such findings need not be disturbed and hence, CRP No.6002/2005 to be dismissed. The learned Assistant Government Pleader also would maintain that the appellate Court totally erred in allowing the appeal, partly allowing 12% per annum interest on the amount of Rs.1,08,074/- from the date of taking possession of the land upto the period of 4 months and after that 4 months i.e., the interest that has to be paid is at the rate of 15% per annum. The learned Counsel also pointed out that these lands were surrendered as per the provisions of the Act and hence, the appellate Court totally erred in relying on V. Ramachandra Reddy's case (supra). 5. Heard the Counse1. 6. The learned Counsel also pointed out that these lands were surrendered as per the provisions of the Act and hence, the appellate Court totally erred in relying on V. Ramachandra Reddy's case (supra). 5. Heard the Counse1. 6. In the light of the submissions made by the Counsel on record, the following points arise for consideration in these civil revision petitions : (1) Whether the findings recorded by the Appellate Tribunal relating to the awarding of interest to be confirmed or to be disturbed in the facts and circumstances of the case ? (2) Whether reassessment of the valuation of the property to be directed in the light of Rule 11(2) of the Rules? (3) If so, to what relief, the parties would be entitled to ? 7. The Primary Tribunal passed an order in C.C. No. 1785/75/UKD, dated 22.3.1999 fixing the value of the land as Rs.1,08,074/- apart from the compensation the land surrendered by the declarant but the interest was disallowed. Aggrieved by the same, the matter was carried by way of appeal L.R.A. No.3/99 on the file of Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Anantapur. The said appeal was filed by the appellant Koka Ramadasappa (died) represented by his legal heir Koka Venkatappa against the Authorized Officer, Land Reforms Tribunal, Anantapur, challenging the order made by the Primary Tribuna1. The Appellate Tribunal formulated the following points for consideration : (1) Whether the appellant is entitled for the compensation of Rs.5,24,381/- for surrendering the bund ? (2) Whether the appellant is entitled for the interest at 15% p.a. as prayed for? (3) To what relief the parties are entitled to ? 8. Point Nos. 1 and 2 : The Appellate Tribunal recorded reasons at Paras 7 and 8, placed reliance on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in V. Ramachandra Reddy's case (supra), and came to the conclusion that the claimant is entitled for an interest of 12% p.a., from the date of taking possession till the expiry of 4 months from the date of impugned order of the Primary Tribunal and thereafter at 15% p.a., from the next day till payment and accordingly answered the point in favour of the claimant. In V. Ramachandra Reddy's case (supra), the Division Bench observed at Paras 9 and 10 as hereunder : "On a perusal of the order of the learned Single Judge and the arguments advanced on both sides, if properly understood, the main grievance revolve around awarding of rate of interest from the date on which the claimants are entitled to. It is not in dispute that the claimants are entitled for compensation both in respect of the land acquired and also the fruit bearing trees. No doubt, the Act and the Rules are silent as to the payment of interest. Merely because the Act and the Rules are silent, it does not mean that when a landed property is acquired and taken possession by the State, the owner of the said land shall not be compensated by way of interest on the compensation awarded. In the case on hand, Mr. M V. Ramana Reddy, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, is fair enough in his submission that his client are not claiming any interest in respect of the compensation given for the land surrendered, but they are claiming interest on the compensation to be detem1ined in respect of the fruit bearing trees If, at the moment the possession of fruit bearing trees was taken, the compensation was paid to the claimants, there would have been no grievance, or even if the grievance was made later it would not have been valid, and the Courts would not have entertained such a grievance for payment of interest. There is no proper explanation why the State kept silent for all these years when the fruit bearing trees belonging to the petitioners were taken over and compensation not paid. If the compensation was immediately paid to the claimants, definitely they would have reinvested the same, as contended by Mr. M.V. Ramana Reddy, by purchasing some other property or by depositing the same in the Bank, which would have definitely accrued some interest. There is much force in the contention of Mr. If the compensation was immediately paid to the claimants, definitely they would have reinvested the same, as contended by Mr. M.V. Ramana Reddy, by purchasing some other property or by depositing the same in the Bank, which would have definitely accrued some interest. There is much force in the contention of Mr. Ramana Reddy that his clients are entitled for interest, whereas the contention of the learned Government Pleader that the claimants are not entitled for interest has no merit." In the light of the aforesaid pronouncement, the portion of the order impugned by the Authorized Officer, Land Reforms Tribunal, Anantapur in CRP No.3685/2005 cannot be found fault in any way and accordingly, the same to be dismissed. However, CRP No.6002/2005 had been preferred wherein specific ground had been raised that the Primary Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal had not followed Rule 11 (2) of the Rules. Rule 11 deals with fixation on value for fruit-bearing trees and structures etc., and Rule 11 (2) reads as hereunder: "The amount payable for the structures of permanent nature shall be equivalent 'to the depreciated value of the structure as on the specified date and for tills purpose, the Tribunal may require the Executive Engineer, Roads and Buildings Division, in the district to furnish an estimate of the depreciated value of such structure." The main grievance ventilated by the revision petitioner in CRP No.6002 of 2005 is that this procedure had not been followed. It is needless to say that when the Rule ordains a particular procedure to be followed, the same to be followed. In the light of the same, CRP No.6002/2005 to be disposed of with suitable directions. 9. Point No.3 " In the light of the findings recorded above, CRP No.3685/2005 being devoid of merit, especially in the light of the decision of the Division Bench referred to supra, the said CRP is hereby dismissed. As far as CRP No.6002/2005 is concerned, the same is disposed of with a direction to follow Rule 11 (2) of the Rules specified supra. No order as to costs.