M. S. PATIL, J. ( 1 ) IN this petition the petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the Special Tahsildar, Land Reforms, Karkala, dk to consider the application dated 6-4-1979 (Annexures-C and D) made by him in case No. TRL 874/76-77 and LRY/ camp/sr 107/76-77 and to pay the amount to him in lump sum. ( 2 ) PURSUANT to order dt. 21-1-1977 of grant of occupancy right in favour of the tenant, the Spl. Tahsildar ; Land Reforms, Karkala, by his order dt. 25-7-1977 determined the amount of compensation payable to the landlord in respect of the lands of which occupancy right was granted in favour of the tenant at Rs. 21,149 40 Ps. out of which only Rs. 2,000 were sanctioned for payment to the petitioner and the rest being payable in bonds. After the second proviso to S. 51 of the Karnataka land Reforms Act was amended, the petitioner made application dated 6-4-1979 (Annexure-C) with a request to pay the balance amount of Rs. 19,149-40 Ps. in lump sum towards full settlement of the claim for extinguishment of his right in the lands of which occupancy right was granted to the tenant. However, by the letter No. COMP SR 107/77-78 dated 12-4-1979 (Annexure-E), the Tahsildar refused to do so and intimated the petitioner that his request could not be considered, since according to him, the amended provisions had come into force with effect from 1-1-1979 and therefore, he could not re-open the case already decided. The petitioner has therefore come up with this petition. ( 3 ) THE view taken by the Tahsildar, it appears, is erroneous. The second proviso to S. 51 of the Karnataka Land Reforms act, inserted by the amended Act No. 3 of 1982, reads as follows :"provided further that the amount payable shall, subject to such rules as may be prescribed , be paid. (i) in the case of a minor, a woman who has never been married, a small holder, a person subject to the prescribed physical or mental disability and subject to Cl. (ii), a widow- (a) in a lumpsum where the amount payable does not exceed Rs. 50,000 ; and (b) where the amount payable exceeds rs. 50,000/- the first Rs. (i) in the case of a minor, a woman who has never been married, a small holder, a person subject to the prescribed physical or mental disability and subject to Cl. (ii), a widow- (a) in a lumpsum where the amount payable does not exceed Rs. 50,000 ; and (b) where the amount payable exceeds rs. 50,000/- the first Rs. 50,000 in a lumpsum and the balance in non-transferable and non-negotiable bonds carrying interest at the rate of 5% per annum and of guaranteed face value maturing within a specified period not exceeding 20 years. (ii) in the case of a widow, if she so elects in writing,. . . . . . . . . . Explanation :-For the purpose of this clause widow,. . . . . . . . . . . Provided also that in relation to a small holder the second proviso shall have effect as if it was in force on and from the first day of March, 1974". ( 4 ) IN the second proviso, as it stood earlier, small holders were not included in the category of persons who were entitled to the lumpsum payment. After the second proviso was inserted by Act 3/82 the small holders were also included in the same category of persons who were entitled to the payment of amounts in lumpsum where the amounts determined did not exceed rs. 50,000. In other words, in all cases where the amount in excess of Rs. 2,000/- were withheld in view of the then existing provisions, the same became payable after the second proviso was inserted by the amended Act. Though the second proviso to S. 51 came to be inserted by the Act no. 3/1982, the Explanation to the proviso so inserted makes it clear that in relation to a small holder, the second proviso shall have effect as if it was in force on and from the 1st day of March, 1974. ( 5 ) THE petitioner claimed to be a small holder. If he was such a small holder, then the amount determined by the Tahsildar being not in excess of Rs. 50,000/- the whole of it became payable immediately. The Tahsildar was therefore not right in holding that he could not review his own order or reopen the case already decided. If he was such a small holder, then the amount determined by the Tahsildar being not in excess of Rs. 50,000/- the whole of it became payable immediately. The Tahsildar was therefore not right in holding that he could not review his own order or reopen the case already decided. In all such cases, it is the duty of the tahsildar to find out if the petitioner is as such a small holder and is entitled to the payment of balance amount withheld. ( 6 ) IN the result, the petition is allowed, the Spl. Tahsildar, Land Reforms, Karkala taluk, Karkala (DK), is directed to consider the application made by the petitioner and dispose of the same in the light of the observations made above. The High Court Government Pleader is permitted to file memo of appearance within two weeks. --- *** --- .