CHIDANANDA ULLAL, J. ( 1 ) IN all these matters, the petitioners have claimed interest as against the state at 5 1/2% on cash payment of compensation amount either paid in part or in full under Section 51 of the Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to in brief as the act), firstly on the ground that the lands were vested in the state from the appointed day i. e. , 1-3-1974 and secondly that they were deprived of the rentals they were receiving till that appointed day from the tenants. They also questioned the rationals on the part of the state for limiting the award of interest only to the amount deferred and paid in the form of national savings certificate. In writ petition No. 18591 of 1988 the petitioner also questioned the rejection of his request for such a claim as at Annexure 'c' to the writ petition issued by the tahsildar, chikkodi and further the circular issued by the state government as at Annexure 'd' to the writ petition explaining the mode of calculations of the compensation amount and the interest under Section 51 of the act. ( 2 ) I heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. Soal so, the learned government pleader appearing for the state and other authorities in the cases. I have also perused the records pertaining to the cases. ( 3 ) SRI t. n. raghupathy, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in writ petition No. 18591 of 1988 had argued that as on 1-3-1974, all the tenanted lands vested in the government as per Section 44 of the act and that under Section 44 (7) of the act every landowner, landlord and every person interested in the land whose rights have been vested in the state government under clause (a) of the said Section shall be entitled to receive compensation with interest, that there is no rationale in differentiating in the matter of awarding of interest between the amount paid in cash either in part or in full and the amount paid in national savings certificates for deferred payments. Under these circumstances, he pointed out that the circular as at Annexure 'd' to the writ petition issued by the government, to stating that no interest is payable on the compensation paid in cash in unjust and untenable and therefore, the same is liable to be quashed. Under these circumstances, he pointed out that the circular as at Annexure 'd' to the writ petition issued by the government, to stating that no interest is payable on the compensation paid in cash in unjust and untenable and therefore, the same is liable to be quashed. He had also pointed out that the endorsement as at Annexure 'c' intimating the petitioner that no interest is payable on the cash payment (compensation in view of the circular at Annexure 'd' is also bad insofar as the same is issued without the petitioner not being heard in the matter. Sri t. n. raghupathy further argued that, right from the appointed day i. e. , 1-3-1974 down to the day on which the landowners are paid with compensation, the landowners are deprived of the rentals that were paid by the tenants earlier, in respect of their lands and therefore, according to him, there is no justification for the landowners to be deprived of that benefit by refusing the award of interest on the cash payment of the compensation either paid in full or in part. Sri t. n. raghupathy further argued that on all belated payments which are statutorily liable to be paid by the state, the state cannot avoid the liability of payment of interest thereon. In support of that argument, he had also cited before me the following four reported decisions and further an unreported decision: (I) Union of India v Justice S. S. Sandhawalia (retd.) And others ; (II) O. P. Gupta v Union of India and others ; (III) State of Kerala and others v M. Padmanabhan Nair; (IV) Nalini Kant Sinha v State of Bihar and others ; (V)INDIRA Bai v State of Karnataka. ( 4 ) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in the rest of the cases i. e. , writ petition No. 28500 to 28507 of 1991 and writ petition No. 28373 of 1991 while adopting the argument addressed as above by Sri t. n. raghupathy had also submitted that the tahsildar, shimoga taluk in another matter, where after the matter was remanded by this court in writ petition No. 21398 of 1986, after considering all the aspects of the case came to the conclusion that under Section 51 of the Act, the landowner is entitled to for interest permissible under Section 51 of the act from the date of vesting to the date of actual payment of compensation. ( 5 ) THE learned government pleader had submitted that the reis no provision for payment of interest on the compensation amount paid by cash either whole or in part as claimed by the petitioners in these petitions. He had also submitted that under Section 48 (b) of the Act, an application for claiming compensation has to be filed by the landowners themselves after the land tribunal communicated the order of granting of occupancy right to the tenants. Hence, according to him, determination of the compensation and payment of interest are depending upon the passing of an order by the land tribunal on the application under Section 48-a of the act and further an application by the landlord before the tahsildar under Section 48-b of the act. ( 6 ) I have given anxious consideration for the above point scanvassed before me by the petitioners on the one side and the learned government pleader on the other. To deal with the same, it is necessary to set out here, the Provisions of Section 51 of the act on the point of mode of payment of compensation to the landowners. To quote the said provision of law, the same reads as follows:"51. Mode of payment of the amount. (1) save as provided in Section 106 the amount payable to any person under Section 47 shall subject to the Provisions of Section 50. To quote the said provision of law, the same reads as follows:"51. Mode of payment of the amount. (1) save as provided in Section 106 the amount payable to any person under Section 47 shall subject to the Provisions of Section 50. (a) be paid in cash in a lump sum if the amount payable does not exceed two thousand rupees; and (b) if the amount payable exceeds two thousand rupees the amount upto two thousand rupees shall be paid in cash and the balance shall be paid in non-transferable and non-negotiable bonds carrying interest at the rate of five and half per cent per annum and of guaranteed face value maturing within a specified period not exceeding twenty years". provided that the amount payable under the bonds issued under this clause may be paid in such number of instalments not exceeding twenty as may be prescribed. Xxx xxx xxx ( 7 ) IF one analyses the above provision of law, one thing is clear that payment of interest at 5 1/2% arises only when the payment of compensation is deferred and paid in the form of national savings certificates and not otherwise. No part of the above provision speaks about payment of interest when the compensation is paid either wholly or partly in cash. If that is so, i do not find any substance in the argument advanced by the petitioners that interest has also to be paid on the compensation amount paid by cash either wholly or partly. Hence, I am not convinced to hold that the petitioners are entitled to for the interest on cash payments of the compensation paid either in part or in full as claimed by them in all these petitions. ( 8 ) ANOTHER aspect of the case is that under Section 48-b of the Act, the tahsildar has to determine the amount of compensation payable on receipt of the orders passed by the land tribunal under sub-section 4 or sub-section 5 of Section 48-a of the act. When application for occupancy right fails despite the subject land being tenanted land or when no application is filed by the tenant in respect of tenanted land, then, in that event the landlord has to file an application claiming compensation for the land vested in the state. As i understand, this is the purport of Section 48-b of the act. When application for occupancy right fails despite the subject land being tenanted land or when no application is filed by the tenant in respect of tenanted land, then, in that event the landlord has to file an application claiming compensation for the land vested in the state. As i understand, this is the purport of Section 48-b of the act. No doubt there may be delay or at times inordinate delay either in deciding the matter by the land tribunal, or delay in deciding the matter by the tahsildar under Section 48-b of the act in the matter of payment of compensation nevertheless there arises no question of payment of interest when the compensation is paid wholly in cash or in part under Section 51 of the act. No doubt it is true that from the date of vesting i. e. , 1-3-1974 to the actual date of payment of compensation to the landowners they stand to lose as they cease to get whatever rent they were getting earlier from the tenants. Therefore, it was rightly argued by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the landowners to that extent stand to lose substantially. However, in my considered view, they cannot help themselves as long as the scheme of things in the matter of payment of interest in the above provision of law is quite silent on that aspect. When the legislation in their wisdom had not provided for any relief to the landowners in the matter of payment of interest to them from the date of vesting to the date of actual payment of compensation in cash either in part or full, neither the authorities nor for that matter, this court can grant any relief to the petitioners. Under the aforementioned circumstances, i do not find any error in the issue of circular by the government as at Annexure 'd' to writ petition No. 18591 of 1988 and in the issue of the endorsement by the tahsildar as at Annexure 'c' to that writ petition since the same was issued as a reply to the representation of the petitioner in writ petition No. 18591 of 1988 as against the order fixing the compensation passed by the tahsildar under Section 48-b of the act. Hence, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that Annexure 'c' came to be passed without any opportunity of being heard does not arise at all. ( 9 ) WITH regard to the decisions cited before me as above, my considered view is that they have no application to the instant cases in hand for, those decisions are applicable when the amounts are legally due to the parties and are not paid well in time and they are statutorily enforceable, whereas in the" instant cases, there are no amounts legally due to the petitioners to be statutorily enforceable. ( 10 ) WITH regard to the submission in the other writ petition si. e. , that the tahsildar, shimoga had already held that under Section 51 of the Act, the landowners are entitled to for the compensation with interest from the date of vesting till the date of actual payment of compensation also paid in cash, it could only be said that the position if held by the tahsildar, is contraryto law. If that is so, the same is therefore of no assistance to the petitioners in these petitions. ( 11 ) IN the result, the writ petitions fail and accordingly, they are dismissed. Rule discharged. No costs. --- *** --- .