ORDER The Tahsildar, Mundagod, by his order dated 24-10-1998, fixed the premium payable in respect of the lands granted to the petitioner's father at Rs. 11,089.50 and interest at Rs. 9,498.50 was added to the said amount and thus quantified the amount payable in respect of 3 acres 2 guntas in Sy. No. 72 and 4 acres 16 guntas in Sy. No. 73 of Mudasali Village, Mundagod Taluk. The said order was questioned before respondent 2-Assistant Commissioner, who, in· turn, confirmed the order passed by the Tahsildar and it is the grievance of the petitioner herein that both the orders viz., one passed by the Tahsildar as per Annexure-A and the other passed by the Assistant Commissioner as per Annexure-B, are illegal and contrary to the provisions of Section 8 as well as Section 53 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. 2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader for the State and perused the material placed. 3. It is the contention of the petitioner's Counsel that in the impugned order at Annexure-B, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, hardly there is any discussion with regard to the amount of premium as well as the interest arrived at by the Tahsildar and except mentioning that the land in Sy. No. 73 comes under the category or irrigated land, there is no reason given by the Assistant Commissioner for confirming the amount fixed by the Tahsildar. The calculation of the amount also is incorrect having regard to the extent of land which comes within the category of irrigated land and, as such, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. 4. The learned Government Pleader for the State, by referring to Section 53 of the Act, submitted that the interest amount has been calculated in accordance with Section 53(1)(ii)(b) of the Act and, therefore, the impugned orders cannot be found fault with. 5. 4. The learned Government Pleader for the State, by referring to Section 53 of the Act, submitted that the interest amount has been calculated in accordance with Section 53(1)(ii)(b) of the Act and, therefore, the impugned orders cannot be found fault with. 5. In the light of the submissions made and having gone through the impugned order, I am of the view that the impugned orders cannot be sustained in law for the simple reason that insofar as payment of interest is concerned, a mere perusal of the above provision of Section 53(1)(ii)(b) would make it clear that the question of payment of interest will arise only when a request is made by the person concerned to pay the amount in installments. Section 53(1)(ii)(b) of the Act reads thus: "53. Payment of premium by tenant.-(1) The amount of premium in respect of the land of which a tenant or sub-tenant entitled to be registered as occupant under Section 45 shall be payable to the State Government by the tenant or sub-tenant. (i) where the amount payable does not exceed two thousand rupees, in a lump sum; (ii) in other cases.- (a) either in lumpsum; or (b) where the amount is paid by him out of his own funds, in annual instalments of such number not exceeding twenty as he may intimate, with interest at five and half per cent per annum; from the date of the order under sub-section (4) or sub-section (5) of Section 48-A and where the money is advanced by the State Land Development Bank or a credit agency, in annual instalments of such number not exceeding the number permitted as maximum for the recovery of term loan granted by such bank or agency without interest thereon: xxx xxx xxx". 6. Therefore, in the absence of there being material to show that, in the instant case, any such request was made by the tenant seeking to pay the amount in installments, the authority concerned could not have imposed the interest. The argument of the learned Government Pleader that interest would be payable even on the amount being paid in lumpsum does not appeal to me because, no such conclusion can be drawn from a plain reading of Section 53(1)(ii)(a). 7. The argument of the learned Government Pleader that interest would be payable even on the amount being paid in lumpsum does not appeal to me because, no such conclusion can be drawn from a plain reading of Section 53(1)(ii)(a). 7. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned orders at Annexures-A and B are set aside and a direction is given to the Tahsildar to work out the actual amount having regard to the provisions of law as obtaining in Sections 8 and 53 of the Act. The writ petition stands allowed accordingly.