ORDER Satish Chandra, J. - This petition arises out of a suit for the recovery of money instituted by Respondent No. 3 against the State of UP in the court of Judge Small Causes, Bijnor. 2. The State acquired the Plaintiff Respondent's land under the UP Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act (No. 1 of 1961). The State took possession of the land on 13-11-1962. Compensation was granted to the Plaintiff in the form of Bonds payable yearly. The first instalment of Rs. 2851.31 was payable on 13-11-1963 and the second instalment of Rs. 2951.09 was payable on 13-11-1964. The Bonds were prepared on 21-7-63 but were actually delivered to the Plaintiff on 20-9-1965. Because of the delay in the delivery of the Bonds, the Plaintiff was not able to collect the first two instalments on the due dates. He, therefore, sued for damages. The measure of damages was given as 3-1/2% of the instalment amount of the Bonds, per year. He claimed a sum of Rs. 273/ at this rate for the period 13-11-1963 to 20-9-1965, the date when the first two instalments were actually paid to him. 3. The suit was contested by the State which pleaded that the court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and that the claim was barred by Rule 30 of the Rules framed under the UP Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. It was also pleaded that the Plaintiff was himself responsible for the delay in the delivery of the Bonds. 4. The trial court held that though the suit was for damages yet it was not barred by any of the entries in the Second Schedule of the Small Causes Courts Act and that the Court had the jurisdiction to entertain the suit. It was held that the Plaintiff was not guilty of causing any delay in the delivery of the bonds. Rule 30 was held as inapplicable to a case where the delay in payment was caused by the delay in delivery of the Bonds by the State. The suit was, ultimately, decreed for Rs. 269/-. 5. The State went up in revision but the same was dismissed by the learned District Judge, who affirmed the findings of the trial court. Aggrieved the State has come to this Court Under Article 226 of the Constitution. 6. The suit was, ultimately, decreed for Rs. 269/-. 5. The State went up in revision but the same was dismissed by the learned District Judge, who affirmed the findings of the trial court. Aggrieved the State has come to this Court Under Article 226 of the Constitution. 6. u/s 22(2) of the UP Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, compensation becomes due on the date on which possession of the land is taken by the State u/s 14(8) of the Act. It is payable from the date of its determination. Sub-section (3) of Section 22 of the Act provides that the State shall pay interest at the rate of three and a half per cent per annum on the amount of compensation determined, from the date the compensation becomes due, till the date of determination, in case the amount is payable in cash and to the date of redemption of bond, in case the amount is payable in bonds. Rules 31 and 32 are relevant, they run as follows: 31. Section 22.--(1) The interest together with the principal of a bond shall be paid in equated annual instalments, except for the last, as described in the Appendix, at the end of these rules during the period of 10 years beginning from the date of dispossession. Provided that any bond may be redeemed at an earlier date at the option of the Government. (2) The instalment shall be paid annually on the completion of each period of twelve calendar months from the date of dispossession. 32. The instalments due on a bond from the date of its enfacement shall be payable on presentation from and after the due date of payment of instalment next after the delivery of the bond to the persons entitled thereto: Provided, that if one cir more instalments have already fallen due before the delivery of the bond, these instalments shall be payable immediately after the delivery of the bond. Explanation: "The date of enfacement" in this rule means the date on which a bond is issued by the Public debt office. The appendix referred to in Rule 31(1) provides that if the denomination of the compensation bond is Rs. 100/- then the value of equated instalment for the first nine years should be Rs. 12. 02 per annum and the value of the 10th residuary instalment would be Rs. 12.06 paisa. The appendix referred to in Rule 31(1) provides that if the denomination of the compensation bond is Rs. 100/- then the value of equated instalment for the first nine years should be Rs. 12. 02 per annum and the value of the 10th residuary instalment would be Rs. 12.06 paisa. The 10 instalments consist of the principal amount of the compensation and the interest payable u/s 22, from the date of taking over possession of the land till the date of the redemption of the bond. Each is an equated instalment. It carries a part of the compensation and a part of the interest to be paid thereon. It will be seen that the tenure holder is paid interest on the amount of the compensation for the entire period beginning with the date of dispossession and ending with the date of redemption of the bond, that is to say, payment of the 10th instalment. In the course of ten years, the tenure holder is paid the entire amount of interest provided for u/s 22(2) of the Act. 7. The Plaintiff, however, claimed that he would have been entitled to the payment of the instalments annually on the completion of each period of twelve calendar months from the date of dispossession. The cause of action for the claim is non compliance with Rule 31(2). This rule, however, has to be read, along with Rule 32 which provides that instalments are payable from the date of the enfacement of the bond from and after the due date of payment of instalment next after the delivery of the bond. So the State becomes liable to pay the instalments only after the delivery of the bond. The State is not liable to pay immediately on the date of the delivery of the bond but only on the due date of the payment of the instalment which falls next after the date of the delivery of the bond. The proviso to Rule 32 makes only this exception, that if one or more instalments have already fallen due before the delivery of the bond, they shall be payable immediately after the delivery of the bond. In the present case the bonds were delivered to the Plaintiff on 20-9-1965; and that is the date on which he received the payment of the first two instalments. 8. In the present case the bonds were delivered to the Plaintiff on 20-9-1965; and that is the date on which he received the payment of the first two instalments. 8. Rule 31(2), read along with Rule 32, shows that the liability to payment of the amount of the instalments arises immediately after the delivery of the bond, in relation to the instalments that have fallen due, prior to the delivery of the bond. The tenure holder to whom the bonds are delivered is, therefore, not entitled to receive the amount of the instalment till the date of the delivery of the bond. The general provisions in Rule 31(2) will have to be read subject to the detailed specification of the manner of payment provided by Rule 32. The Plaintiff is, therefore, not entitled to claim damages merely by reason of the delivery of the bond taking place after one or more instalments have fallen due. 9. The Plaintiff cannot base his claim on any general law of contract, because his right to receive the instalments on the completion of the twelve calendar months from the date of dispossession arises not under any voluntary contract or any provision of general law, but only because of Rules 31 and 32. The right to receive the money, flowing as it does from the statutory provision, can be recognised only subject to the limitations placed upon such a right, by the provisions of the rules. In my opinion, the Plaintiffs claim was misconceived. It was liable to be dismissed. The petition succeeds and is allowed, the decree is set aside and the suit is dismissed. The parties shall however, bear their own costs through out.