Honble YADAV, J. — I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. (2). The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the non- petitioner Bank raised a preliminary objection that the instant revision is not maintainable as according to him the order passed under sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the Rajasthan Agricultural Credit Operations (Removal of Difficulties) Act, 1974 (in short the Act of 1974) assumes the character of a decree passed by the Civil Court, therefore, an appeal lies against the order passed by the prescribed authority before (he District Judge within the meaning of Section 3 read with Sec. 96 of C.P.C. (3). In support of his aforesaid argument the learned counsel for the non-petitioner Bank placed reliance on a decision rendered by learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Daulat Ram vs. Punjab National Bank, (1). (4). The aforesaid argument advanced on behalf of the non- petitioner Bank by learned counsel Shri PC Singhvi is refuted by learned counsel for the revisionist Shri O.P. Pungalia. According to him he has already admitted about finality attached to the order dated 3.3.1981 passed by Sub-Divisional Officer, Merta. According to the by Sub-Divisional learned counsel for the revisionist the initial order passed Officer on 3.3.1981 will be deemed to be a decree passed by Civil Court, therefore, that order had attained finality. But when the aforesaid decree was put into execution then he filed an objection u/S. 47 CPC. According to the learned counsel for the revisionist if the order passed by the prescribed authority on 3.3.1981 have a colour of decree for a limited purpose of execution passed by a Civil Court then whenever and wherever such order having a colour of a decree is put into execution Section 47 would come into play and the revisionist would be entitled to file an objection. (5). Since the revisionist has come up against rejection of his application u/s. 47 CPC, therefore, he is perfectly entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 115 CPC. (6). I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions raised at the bar. I am not impressed with the argument advanced on behalf of the non-petitioner Bank to the effect that the revisionist ought to have filed an appeal before the learned District Judge u/S. 3 read with section 96 CPC. (7). (6). I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions raised at the bar. I am not impressed with the argument advanced on behalf of the non-petitioner Bank to the effect that the revisionist ought to have filed an appeal before the learned District Judge u/S. 3 read with section 96 CPC. (7). In my considered opinion the revisionist was perfectly justified to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court u/S. 115 CPC inasmuch as earlier it is true that the order passed u/S, 47 CPC was included with the ambit of a decree as defined under sub- section (2) of Section 2 of CPC but by Amending Act No. 104 of 1976 the words and figures of Section 47 are omitted, therefore, in my opinion if any objection is filed under said section by the revisionist before the prescribed authority then against its rejection he is justified to file a revision before this Court and an argument contrary to it is not acceptable to me. The facts and circumstances of the case of Daulat Ram (supra) are not attracted in the present case. So the preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for the non-petitioner Bank is hereby over ruled and I propose to decide the present revision on merit. (8). The revisionist is an agriculturist and owns agricultural land at village Harsore, Tehsil Degana, District Nagaur. She applied for loan for the purpose of purchase of ford tractor and Cheff Cutter to the non-petitioner Bank. The non-petitioner Bank sanctioned Rs. 54,000/- loan to the revisionist which was payable in instalments. (9). It is common phenomenon in State of Rajasthan that poor peasantry has to face drought off and on so has happened in the present case also due to which the revisionist was not. in a position to pay the regular instalments due to the non-petitioner Bank. (10). Since the loan was granted to the revisionist for agricultural purposes, therefore, the non-petitioner Bank instituted a proceeding u/s. 13(1) of the Act of 1974 before the Sub- Divisional Officer, Merta on 16.1.1981. (11). A certified copy of the application is produced before me by the learned counsel for the revisionist which indicates that the non-petitioner Bank claimed Rs. 22,000/- as principal amount, Rs. 5,109/- as interest and Rs. 1,355/- other charges for which no details have been disclosed in the application. (11). A certified copy of the application is produced before me by the learned counsel for the revisionist which indicates that the non-petitioner Bank claimed Rs. 22,000/- as principal amount, Rs. 5,109/- as interest and Rs. 1,355/- other charges for which no details have been disclosed in the application. Thus the total claim was calculated by the non-petitioner Bank against the revisionist was Rs. 28,464/-. (12). It is evident from the said application dated 16.1.1981 that the non-petitioner Bank has not claimed any future interest upon the said amount. Upon receipt of application u/S. 13(1) of the Act of 1974 from non-petitioner Bank the Sub-Divisional Officer, Merta issued a notice to the revisionist to appear before his court on 18.2.1981. (13). After service of notice it appears that due to some reason the revisionist being a lady did not appear before the prescribed authority, therefore, the prescribed authority in quick succession passed an order on 3.3.1981 decreeing the claim of the non-petitioner Bank which is to be treated as a decree passed by a Civil Court and also liable to be executed as contemplated u/S. 13(2) of the Act of 1974. (14). Indisputably the order passed by the prescribed authority on 3.3.1981 had attained finality as the revisionist has not approached to the higher court challenging the legality and validity of the said order by way of judicial review of the said Order which has a colour of a decree passed by a civil court for a limited purpose of execution. (15). After some time the Sub Divisional Officer, Merta transferred the case to the Assistant Collector, Degana where during the proceedings the revisionist paid in the court and deposited a sum of Rs. 1,03,510.33 in cash and Rs. 10,0007- were received by the non-petitioner Bank under the Debt Relief Scheme of the Government of India. The deposit of huge amount of Rs. 1,13,510.33 on behalf of the revisionist is not being disputed before me by the learned counsel for the non-petitioner Bank. (16). The surprising aspect of the case is that even after deposit of aforesaid huge amount by the revisionist a proclamation of Rs. 28,464/- and interest was issued from the court of Assistant Collector, Degana which is a glaring example of harassment of a farmer. (17). (16). The surprising aspect of the case is that even after deposit of aforesaid huge amount by the revisionist a proclamation of Rs. 28,464/- and interest was issued from the court of Assistant Collector, Degana which is a glaring example of harassment of a farmer. (17). It is easily deductible from the application dated 16.1.1981 moved by non-petitioner Bank before Sub Divisional Officer, Merta under Section 13(1) of the Act of 1974 that on the date of application out of 54,000/- loan given to the revisionist she has already paid Rs. 32,000/- principal amount and interest thereon and only Rs. 22,000/- was due against her towards principal amount and interest thereon. On the basis of the order dated 3.3.1981 passed by Sub Divisional Officer, Merta on the said application the revisionist has admittedly paid Rs. 1,13,510.33 yet a proclamation of Rs. 28,464/- was issued by Assistant Collector Degana with close mind which amount exploitation of a farmer. Proclamation issued by Assistant Collector, Degana appears to me to be unconscionable within the meaning of Usuries Loan Act. (18). Against the aforesaid proclamation issued from the court of Assistant Collector, Degana, the revisionist filed an application on 25.7.94 before him asserting therein that she has already paid the amount more than legally recoverable from her hence the proclamation of Rs. 28,464/- and interest should be quashed. (19). The prescribed authority Assistant Collector, Degana heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties before whom various provisions of Act of 1974 as well as a decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Corporation Bank vs. D.S. Dowda & Anr. (2), was brought to his notice. (20). It is pertinent to note that without making any reference and without meeting the points raised on behalf of the revisionist the prescribed authority by adopting a myopic attitude rejected the said application. It is further important to note that although the prescribed authority has noticed the decision given by the Apex Court in the case of Corporation Bank (supra) but he did not care to look into the proposition of law laid down by the Apex Court. I seriously record my disapproval about the manner in which the prescribed authority has decided the controversy between the parties. (21). I seriously record my disapproval about the manner in which the prescribed authority has decided the controversy between the parties. (21). It is well to remember that under Article 141 of the Constitution of India the law declared by the Honble Supreme Court becomes the law of land and every judicial and administrative governmental authorities as well as court of law are under legal obligation to act and to take decision as the law pronounced by the Apex Court. (22). It is true that the prescribed authority for committing error of judgment cannot be taken to task as contemplated under the Judicial Officers Protection Act but it would be suffice to observe that whenever and wherever a decision of the Apex Court is placed before any authority whether exercising executive power, whether exercising quasi judicial power or whether he is exercising judicial power he is bound to act in aid of the pronouncement of the Honble Supreme Court. Article 144 of the Constitution of India reads thus : — "144. Civil and Judicial Authorities to act in aid of the Supreme court: — All authorities, civil and judicial, in the territory of India shall act in aid of the Supreme Court." (23). The aforesaid discussion leads towards an irresistible conclusion that under the frame work of the Constitution of India every governmental authority whenever and wherever a decision of the Supreme Court is brought to his notice on the point under his consideration he has no option except to decide the controversy between the parties as the law declared and pronounced by the Honble Supreme Court and any departure made by the governmental authority against such pronouncement would amount anathema to the supremacy of rule of law in a democratic country like ours. (24). It is not disputed before me and it is also borne out from the impugned order that the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Corporation Bank (supra) was brought to the notice of the prescribed authority yet he did not care to look into it. The proposition laid down in para 22 of- the said judgment is quoted below in extenso : "22. The proposition laid down in para 22 of- the said judgment is quoted below in extenso : "22. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx Therefore, to allow the banks to charge interest on quarterly or half yearly rests from farmers would tantamount to virtually compelling them to pay compound interest, since they would not be able to pay the interest except once in a year i.e. when they receive the income from sale proceeds of their crops. The Reserve Bank has shown concern for the farmers by directing all banking institutions to so regulate the recovery of interest as to coincide with the point of time when the farmers are fluid. It has, therefore, been emphasised by the Reserve Bank that interest should be charged once a year to coincide with the point of time when the farmer is fluid and interest on current dues should not be compounded although it may be done when the advance/instalment becomes overdue. Thus according to the circulars/directives, so far as loans for agricultural purposes are concerned, at best interest may be charged with yearly rests and may be compounded if the loan/instalment becomes overdue. In the present case, since interest was charged with six monthly rests that was clearly in contravention of the Reserve Bank circulars/directives. Compounding of interest on current dues on agricultural advances having been discouraged, the Bank was not entitled to charge interest with shorter periodical rests and compound the same. The Bank could add interest outstanding to the principal and compound the interest when the crop loan or term loan becomes overdue having regard to the tenor of the circular dated March 14, 1972. The High Court was, therefore, fully justified in coming to the conclusion that the Bank was not entitled to charge interest with half yearly rest." (25). It is evident from the aforesaid proposition of law enunciated by the Apex Court that from an agriculturist the Banks cannot be allowed to charge interest on quarterly or half yearly rests. The High Court was, therefore, fully justified in coming to the conclusion that the Bank was not entitled to charge interest with half yearly rest." (25). It is evident from the aforesaid proposition of law enunciated by the Apex Court that from an agriculturist the Banks cannot be allowed to charge interest on quarterly or half yearly rests. If it is done it would amount virtually compelling him to pay compound interest at a time when he would not be able to pay the interest. In fact an agriculturist becomes capable to pay loan and interest thereon only once in a year i.e. when he receives income from sale proceeds of his crops. (26). The aforesaid proposition of law has been laid down by the Honble Supreme Court after taking into account the various regulations issued by the Reserve Bank of India in exercise of its power under Banking Regulations Act directing all banking institutions to regulate the recovery of interest as to coincide with the point of time when the farmers are fluid. It has therefore been emphasised by the Reserve Bank that interest should be charged once a year to coincide with the point of time when the farmers are fluid and interest on current dues should not be compounded. Thus according to the circulars/directives so far as loan for agricultural purposes are concerned, at best interest may be charged with yearly rests and may be compounded if the loan/instalment becomes overdue. (27). In the present case it is not disputed before me that by the impugned order the non-petitioner Bank has claimed and charged interest with six monthly rest in clear contravention of the various circulars and directives issued by the reserve Bank of India in exercise of its power under Banking Regulations Act. Thus charging of interest in the present case with six monthly rest run counter to the proposition of law laid down by the apex court in the case of Corporation Bank (supra). (28). In abundant caution the prescribed authority is directed to ask from the non-petitioner Bank to furnish a fresh statement of account after passing of order by Sub-Divisional Officer, Merta on 3.3.1981 decreeing the application u/S. 13(1) of the Act of 1974 calculating interest on such decretal amount with yearly rest upto payment of Rs. 1,03,510.33 by the revisionist in cash and adjust the balance if any from Rs. 1,03,510.33 by the revisionist in cash and adjust the balance if any from Rs. 10,000/- paid by the Government of India under Debt Relief Scheme. If total amount Rs. 1,13,510.33. paid by revisionist and also paid by Government of India on her behalf is found to be in excess then the excess amount be recovered from the non-petitioner Bank and the revisionist would be entitled to obtain refund of such amount if any. (29). It is made clear that till the dispute is decided on merits by the prescribed authority any recovery in lieu of loan and interest thereon in question shall be kept in abeyance. (30). As a result 6f the aforementioned discussion the order impugned passed by Assistant Collector, Degana dated 20.8.1994 is hereby set aside and the instant revision is allowed with cost assessed to Rs. 2,000/-. The case is remanded back to the prescribed authority Sub Divisional Officer, Merta himself to examine the facts and circumstances of this case in view of the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Corporation Bank (supra) as well as observations made in the preceding paragraphs of this order instead of remitting the case to Assistant Collector, Degana.