1 APP126/11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO.126 OF 2011 IN L.A.R. No.91 OF 1987 Byramjee Jeejeebhoy Pvt.Ltd. ...Appellants v/s The Special Land Acquisition Officer 7 and anr. ...Respondents Mr K.P. Jain i/b Ms Ranjeeta R. Matkar for Appellants. Mr P.G. Lad for Respondent No.1. Mr U.J. Makhija with Mr Pimple for Respondent No.2. CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH AND ANOOP V. MOHTA JJ. DATE : 7TH MARCH 2011. 2 APP126/11 P.C. :- 1] Admit. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2] By this appeal, the appellants challenge the order dated 29th March 2010 passed in L.A.R. No. 91 of 1987. The only part of that order which is challenged in this appeal is that the learned Single Judge has awarded interest at the rate of 4 % p.a. On the amount of enhanced compensation without considering the provisions of section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894. The only submission made by the learned counsel appearing for appellants is that the learned Single Judge who has awarded interest 4 % p.a. Should have seen the provisions of section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894. He relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Manipur Tea Co.Pvt.Ltd. v/s Collector of Hailakandi, reported in AIR 1997 SC 1779 to contend that the learned Single Judge had no discretion to award interest at a lesser rate. The learned counsel 3 APP126/11 appearing for acquiring body, on the other hand, relies on the agreement between the parties to contend that the appellants had agreed to be satisfied with interest at the rate of 4 % p.a. He also relies on two judgments of the supreme Court in the case of State of Assam and anr. v/s Jitendra Kumar Senapati and others, reported in AIR 1981 SC 969 and Karnataka Electricity Board v/s State of Karnataka and others, reported in (2002) 3 SCC 141 to claim that in view of the agreement entered into by the appellants, the learned Single Judge was justified in awarding interest at the rate of 4 % p.a. In our opinion, as it is common ground before us that the point was raised before the learned Single Judge inasmuch as the appellants had claimed interest at the rate of 15 % p.a., the learned Single Judge should have considered the contention of the appellants that the appellants are entitled to interest at the rate of 15 % p.a. or not and should have considered relevant provision of law and judgments of the Supreme Court together with the agreement between the parties and other material on 4 APP126/11 which the parties may rely. In our opinion, as this is the only question raised in appeal, following order would meet the ends of justice. 3] The order of the learned Single Judge impugned in the appeal is set aside only to the extent that it awards 4 % p.a. interest on enhanced compensation. The matter is remitted back to the learned Single Judge for reconsideration of that question. During the pendency of the proceedings before the learned Single Judge, the acquiring body may deposit the amount which is awarded by the order which is impugned in the appeal with the Special Land Acquisition Officer 7 subject to fresh decision on remand. The appellants may be permitted by the Special Land Acquisition Officer 7 to withdraw that amount without prejudice to the rights and contentions in the proceedings that have been remanded. Appeal is disposed off. Parties to act on the copy of this order 5 APP126/11 duly authenticated by the Associate / Private Secretary of this Court. Certified copy expedited. ( JUSTICE D.K. DESHMUKH ) ( JUSTICE ANOOP V. MOHTA )