The specific provision in the statute for payment of interest on the amount of acquisition must govern the award of interest on the amount of compensation payable under the Act, and no other provision or principle of general application should apply.

J.S. Verma, CJ.-The question referred by a Division Bench for decision by us is as under:-“Whether in view of the express provision contained in Sub-section (6) of Section 19 of the Act (Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling of Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973), interest at rate in excess of 2 1/2% can be awarded on the -amount of compensation under the Act.”

2. Thepetitioner claimed interest on the amount of compensation payable in respect of the surplus land surrendered under the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973 (for short ‘the Act) in excess of the rate specified in Sub-section (6) of Section 19 of the Act. The petitioner placed reliance on a Division Bench decision in D. B. Civil Special Appeal No. 18 of 1987 Thakurani Shekhawatji Krishna Kumari vs. State of Rajasthan and another, decided on March 6, 1987, wherein interest was awarded at the rate of 10’ per cent per annum on the amount of compensation and in the event of default in payment within three months, the interest was to be paid at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of surrender of the surplus land. The Division Bench before which this petition came for hearing found itself unable to concur with the view taken by another Division Bench in the aforesaid decision. Accordingly, this reference has been made.

3. Admittedly, specific provision is made in Sub-section (6) of the Act for payment of interest on the amount which is determined as the compensation payable for acquisition. Section 19(6) is as under:-“The amount of acquisition shall carry simple interest at two and a half per cent per annum from the date of surrender of surplus land under Sub-section (2) of Section 16 or of ejectment there from under Sub-section (3) of that section, as the case may be, till the date of payment.” There is no controversy that this specific provision applies to the present case. The question, therefore, is whether in spite of this specific provision interest can be paid at a rate in excess of that specifically provided in Section 19(6) on the basis of any other provision. We have no doubt that in view of the specific provision contained in Section 19(6) of the Act, the question of award of interest on the amount of compensation payable under the Act must be governed by this specific provision only and no other provision or principle of general application. The language of Section 19(6) is plain enough to reach this conclusion.

4. We find that the judgment in Thakurani Shekhawatji Krishna Kumari’s case (Supra) deals with the question of award of interest without making any reference to Sub-section (6) of Section 19 of the Act even thougji this was the specific provision applicable therein’. It appears that this provision was not brought to the notice of the Division Bench deciding that case. it is, therefore, obvious that the decision therein was rendered per incuriam. With respect we regret our inability to subscribe to the view taken therein overlooking the specific provision contained in Section 19(6) of the Act.

5. As a result of the aforesaid discussion we answer the above quoted question as under:-“In view of the express provision contained in Sub-section (6) of Section 19 of the Rajas than Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973, simple interest at a rate in excess of two and a half per cent cannot be awarded on the amount of compensation Under the Act.”

6. Since the petition itself has been referred to the Full Bench and above is the only question for decision, the petition is dismissed. No costs.