( 1 ) THIS batch of eight revisions raise a common question of law and, therefore, are disposed of by a common order. ( 2 ) THIS relevant original petitions and Misc Appeals, out of which these revisions arise, in the Courts of the Civil and Dist Judges at Bellary, are respectively as follows : original petitions: 137 and 164/65, 139/64, 141, 140, 142, 165 and 166[65. Misc Appeals, 56, 58, 59, 63, 62, 60, 61 and 57/1971. ( 3 ) ALL these relate to proceedings arising out of notifications undei ss. 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act dt. 14-10-1941 and 9-7-1964 respectively. It is unnecessary to refer to the other derails regarding the awards made by the Land Acquisition Officer and the Court of reference for the present purpose, as the question raised is one of pure law as shall be presently indicated. It is, however, necessary to refer to four circumstances, which are undisputed: (1) Although the notification under S-4 of the l. A. Act had been published as far back as on 14-10-1941, the final notification of acquisition came to the published only on 9-7-1964, i. e. , nearly 23 years there after; (2) the, compensation awarded by the LAO has been received by the revision petitioners, albeit under protest, only on 30-9-64; (3) the compensation wa,s enhanced by the Civil Judge on a reference under S. 18 of the L. A Act only in the first three of the original petitions enumerated earlier, and no increase has been granted in the remaining cases; and (4} the conrerned acauisitions arose out of a common notification under S. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. ( 4 ) THE orders under revision have been challenged on only one ground common to all of them. It is that having regard to the provisions of S 3 (3) of the Land Acquisition (Mysore Amendment and validation) act 1967 hereinafter refferred to as the 'amendment Act', it was the clear duty of the Courts below to have awarded interest at the rate of 6 per cent in respect of the entire market value whether enhanced or not for the period between 14-10-1944 and 30-0-1064. the date on which compensation was raid by the Land Acquisition Officer. the date on which compensation was raid by the Land Acquisition Officer. ( 5 ) BEFORE Adverting to the contention urged by Sri M. R. Achar, jearned Counsel for he petitioners, it is necessary to set out S. 3 (3) of the amendment Act It reads. "where acquision of any particular land covered by a notification under sub-sec (1) of S. 4 of the principal Act, or the amended Act befora the Commencement of the Act is or has been made in pursuance of any declaration under S 6 of the principal Act or the amended Act, whether made before or after such commencement and such declaeration is or has been made after the expiry of three years from the date of publication of such notification there shall be paid simple interest calculated at six percentum per annun on the market value of such land as determined under sec. 23 of the principal Act or the amended Act from the date of expiry of the said peried of three years to the date of tender of paument of commensation awarded by the deputy Commissioner for the acquisition of such land. Provided that no such interest shall be payable for any period during which the proceedings for the acouisition of any land were held up on account of stay or injunction by order of a Court: provided further that nothing in this sub-section shall apply to the acquisition of any land where the amount of compensation has bene paid to the persons interested before the commencement of this act. " (Underlining italics is mine) ( 6 ) THE Amendment Act is apparently intended to supersede tho effect of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of M. P. v. Vishnu Prasad, AIR 1966 SC 1593 . and validate the acquisitions made till the enacting of that Act. Sub-sec (3) of S. 3 of that Act was intended to provide for payment of some compensation in cases of delayed acquisitions, wherein the notification under S. 6 of the, L. A. Act came to be issued more than three years after the publication of the notification under S. 4, the latter having been published prior to the enactment of that Act. It is in this context, that provision has been made for the payment of interest for the period lying between the date of expiry of the three years time limit as aforementioned and the date of the payment of compensation by the LAO. It is further provided by the second of the provisoes to S 3 (3) that the benefit of the main provision in regard to payment of interest shall not be available in cases where the amount awarded by the LAO has already been paid over to the claimants before the date of commencement of the amendment Act off 1967, In other words, matters which have been concluded by the LAO, and possession of the properties taken by him, before the commencement fo the Amendment would not be affected by the said provision. ( 7 ) I shall now revert to the contention urged. Basing on the words "as determined under Sec. 23 of the principal Act or the Amended Act" occurring in S. 3 (3) reproduced above, and also on certain enunciations of the Supreme Court that the amount awarded by the LAO was not a determination as such, but only an offer made on behalf of the State, it is contended that such determination of compensation is only relateable to an ulimate determination by a Court on a reference, and in appeal, if any, under the provisions of S. 23 of the L. A. Act. In other words, the Deputy commr (Land Acquisition Officer) does not at all determine the market value of the land acquired, in accordance with S. 23 of the L. A. Act, but only specifies the amount which the State would be willing to offer for such land. Therefore until such a determination is made by the Court and any amount awarded pursuant thereto is tendered by the LAO, interest under S. 3 (3) of the Amendment Act would have to be paid. It is also contended that the bar enacted in the second of the provisoes to that subsection would not operate in respect of cases where the aforesaid conditions relative to a determination by a Court and tender of payment by the lao, are not satisfied. It will operate only in cases which have stood concluded prior to the commencement of the Amendment Act as regards both such determination and payment Of compensation. It will operate only in cases which have stood concluded prior to the commencement of the Amendment Act as regards both such determination and payment Of compensation. The cases on hand clearly fall outside the purview of the said proviso. It is also urged that the payment of the amount of compensation contemplated under the said proviso is clearly reliable to a determination by a Court under S. 23 of the L. A. Act as according to the learned Counsel it has no relevance to a determination to be made by a LAO under the other provisions of such act. That it has to be so understood will be clear from the well settled principle of interpretation of statutes that a proviso is ordinarily an exception to, the main operative part of a statute to which it relates and, therefore, has reference only to a subject matter which is common both to itself and such main part of the statute. ( 8 ) ON behalf of the State, Sri N. Venkatachala, the learned Addl govt Advocate, urged a two fold argument. Firstly, that the clause "to the date of tender of payment of compensation awarded by the Deputy commr" occurring in S. 3 (3) of the Amendment Act would clearly connote that the amount to be paid is what has been determined by the Dy commr himself under the provisions of the L. A. Act and none other, and if the legislature had intended otherwise and had in view a datermination made by a Court, it could have easily expressed it in unambiguous language. Moreover, any other interpretation would not be consistent with the object of the statute (Amendment Act ). Secondly, the clause as determined under S. 23 of the principal or amended Act is only an explanation of the principles to be borne in mind by a Deputy Commr, as specifically enjoined by S. 15 of the L. A. Act. In this view, no question of determination by a Court would arise in the context of Sec. 3 (3) of the amendment Act. This second proviso in question which refers to payment of compensation must be understood only in the sense of what is awarded by the Deputy Commr within the meaning of the main clause of the said sub-section. In this view, no question of determination by a Court would arise in the context of Sec. 3 (3) of the amendment Act. This second proviso in question which refers to payment of compensation must be understood only in the sense of what is awarded by the Deputy Commr within the meaning of the main clause of the said sub-section. Therefore such compensation awarded by the Dy Commr having been paid over long prior to the enactment of the Amendment Act, the claim in the present proceedings would be clearly barred by the second of the provisoes to, S. 3 (3) of that Act. ( 9 ) ON giving my careful and anxious consideration to the matter, i am dearly of opinion that the cantentions urged on behalf of the State ate sound and clearly deserve to be accepted and the petitions, therefore, have to fail. ( 10 ) THE expression as determined under S. 23 of the principal Act or the amended Act" occurring in Sec. 3 (3) of the Amendment Act. has to be understood in the light off the language used in the entire sub-section. The last clause in the said sub-section clearly refers to payment of compensation awarded by the Deputy Commissioner, It is clear, therefore, that the earlier reference to a determination of market value could have reference to a determination made by the Deputy Commr himself. The fact that the said determination could be characterised as a mere 'offer', as contended, or otherwise, makes no difference to the intention of the legislature as expressed in clear language to the aforesaid effect. ( 11 ) BUT the accent of the argument of Sri Achar has all been on the clause as determined under S. 23 of the principal Act". ( 11 ) BUT the accent of the argument of Sri Achar has all been on the clause as determined under S. 23 of the principal Act". The argument is that a determination under S 23 of the L A. Act could only be made by a Court to which a reference under S 18 has been made, and not by a deputy Commr functioning as a LAO Hence, the determination of the market value contemplated under Sec 3 (3) of the Amendment Act, has reference to proceedings before a Court and Court only This argument, for one, thing, overlooks the provisions of S. 15 of the Land Acquisition Act, which makes it abundantly clear that even the Denuty Commr should proceed to make whatever determination or award he has been required to make under the Act in regard to market value, with reference to the provisions of Ss,23 and 24 of that Act, apart from any other requirement under that Act. The words "shall be guided" occurring in S. 15 of that act would not, In my view, connotte that such a requirement was only directory in character ( 12 ) ANY determination or award to be made by a Deputy Commr in the content of land acquisition could not, in my view, be de hors the principles laid down in S. 23 of the Land Acquisition Act ( 13 ) AS a result of the foregoing discussion, these petitions clearly deserve to fail and are accordingly dismissed No costs. --- *** --- .