( 1 ) CERTAIN lands belonging to the appellant Subhadra Jbai were compul- sorily acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, lor wnich the Land Acquisition officer awarded compensation or Rs. 35, 374. She claimed interest under S. 34 of the Land Acquisition Act; but the said claim was rejected on the ground that possession of the lands was taken not in the year 1958 as claimed by her, but on 27th January 1964, supsequent to the award. ( 2 ) THEREAFTER, the Land Acquisition Officer having been moved by her under S. 18 of the Act made a reference to the Civil Judge at Raichur. before the Civil Judge, the appellant stated that she had no grievance about the quantum oi compensation awarded to her. her case was that she was actually dispossessed in the year 1058 and that therefore, she has become entitled to be paid either crop compensation, i. e. , compensation in respect" of crops which she would have grown had she not been dispossessed during the years 1958 to 1963, 01 in the alternative, interest on the compensation amount of Rs. 35,374. ( 3 ) THE Civil Judge accepted the contention of the Land Acquisition officer regarding the taking oi possession and thereiore dismissed her claim. ( 4 ) IN this appeal directed against the said award of the Civil Judge, the appellant has valued the appeal as follows: the appellant claims Rs. 9,000 towards crop compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,500 from 1958 to end of 1963 and a Court fee of Rs. 675 is herewith paid. In the alternative, the appellant claims interest at the rate of 6 per cent under the provisions of the Hyderabad Land Acquisition act, from l958 to 24-6-1961 and at the rate of 5 per cent from 4-8-1961 to 26-11-1965 under the Mysore. Land Acquisition Act. This amount comes to Rs. 12,469-34 paise. but no Court fee is liable to be paid on the interest amount, since it is not governed by S. 48 of the Mysore court Fee and Suits Valuation Act (A separate memo is enclosed ). " ( 5 ) IN the memorandum of appeal as originally filed, the two reliefs were shown as cumulative reliefs and the total valuation as Rs. 21,469-34. " ( 5 ) IN the memorandum of appeal as originally filed, the two reliefs were shown as cumulative reliefs and the total valuation as Rs. 21,469-34. But having regard to the appellant's case in the Court below which was for the grant of one or the other of the reliefs in the alternative, the valuation has since been amended, with our permission, to read as extracted above. ( 6 ) ON the valuation as it originally stood, the Registrar of this Court raised an objection to the appellant's contention that no Court fee was payable in respect of the alternative relief of interest. The appellant having declined to accept the Registrar's suggestion, the matter has been posted before us for adjudication on the question of Court fee. ( 7 ) S. 48 of the Court Fees Act, which is referred to in the valuation memo, reads as follows :"fee on memorandum of Appeal against decision, award or order relating to compensation.-The fee payable under this Act on a memorandum of appeal against a decision, an award or an order relating to compensation under any Act for the time being in force for the acquisition of property for public purpose shall be computed on the difference between the amount awarded and the amount claimed by the applicant. " ( 8 ) THE section covers cases of compulsory acquisition coming not merely under the Land Acquisition Act but under any other Act also. We are, however, concerned in this case only with the provisions of the land Acquisition Act and theretore we will confine our discussion to the relevant provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. Therefore, whatever we say in this order is not to be regarded as applicable to cases falling under acts other than the Land Acquisition Act. ( 9 ) THE principal contention pressed on behalf of the appellant by her counsel, Mr. Muralidhara Rao, is that under S. 48 of the Court fees Act, court fee has to be paid on the difference between the amount awarded by the lower Court ana the amount claimed in the appellate Court, and that interest on the amount awarded is an adjunct of the amount awarded but does not form part of the amount awarded. He relies upon the observations of the Supreme Court in Satinder Singh v. Umrao Singh , AIR 1961 SC 908 and in National Insurance Co. He relies upon the observations of the Supreme Court in Satinder Singh v. Umrao Singh , AIR 1961 SC 908 and in National Insurance Co. v. Life Insurance Corporation , AIR 1963 SC 1171 on the strength of which the Gujarat High Court in patel Anundilal v. Addl Spl. Land Acquisition Officer , AIR 1965 Guj. 213 and the Andhra Pradesh High Court in r. D. Suryanarayana Rao v. Revenue Divisional Officer , AIR 1969 AP 55 have come to the conclusion that in appeals against the awards in cases under the Land acquisition Act, no Court fee need be paid on or in respect of interest. ( 10 ) THE observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Satinder Singh occur in para 19 of the judgment at page 916 of the Report. They are as follows :"when a claim for payment of interest is made by a person whose immovable property has been acquired compulsorily he is not making claim for damages properly or technically so called; he is basing his claim on the general rule that if he is deprived of his land he should be put in possession of compensation immediately; if not, in lieu of possession taken by compulsary acquisition interest should be paid to him on the said amount of compensation. " ( 11 ) IN the case of the National Insurance Co. , AIR 1963 SC 1171 the principle is indicated in para 26 of the judgment at page 1179 of the Report as follows :"on entering possession the purchaser becomes entitled to the rents but if he has not paid the price, interest in equity is deemed payable by him on the purchase price "which belongs to the seller. This principle was applied by the House of Lords in cases of compulsory purchases. " ( 12 ) NOW, under the Land Acquisition Act, payment of interest is provide for in two sections-S. 28 and S. 34. This principle was applied by the House of Lords in cases of compulsory purchases. " ( 12 ) NOW, under the Land Acquisition Act, payment of interest is provide for in two sections-S. 28 and S. 34. The former section states :"if the sum which, in the opinion of the Court, the Deputy Commissioner; ought to have awarded as compensation is in excess of the sum which the Deputy Commissioner did award as compensation, the award of the Court may direct that the deputy Commissioner shall pay interest on such excess at the rate of five per centum per annum from the date on which he took possession of the land to the date of payment of such excess into Court. "the latter section reads :"when the amount of such compensation is not paid or deposited on or before taking possession of the land, the Deputy Commissioner shall pay the amount awarded with interest thereon at the rate of five per centum per annum from the time of so taking possession until it shall have been so paid or deposited. " ( 13 ) IT will be seen that whereas S. 28 of the Land Acquisition Act invests the Court with a discretion on the question whether or not interest should be paid or directed to be paid on enhanced compensation, Sec. 34 contains a mandatory rule which obliges the Deputy Commissioner to pay interest if possession has already been taken before depositing the compensation amount in Court. ( 14 ) ANOTHER aspect to be borne in mind is that in S. 34, the expression 'amount awarded' indubitably means the amount determined in accordance with the principles stated in S. 23, which sets out various circumstances to be taken into account for determining the market value of the property acquired on the relevant date and also directs payment, in addition to the market value so determined, of a sum equal to fifteen per cent of the market value in consideration of compulsory nature of the acquisition. From the language of sub-sec. (2) of S. 23 itself it becomes clear that solatium is also part of compensation because it is given in consideration of the compulsory acquisition. Sub-sec. From the language of sub-sec. (2) of S. 23 itself it becomes clear that solatium is also part of compensation because it is given in consideration of the compulsory acquisition. Sub-sec. (1) of S. 23 deals with the determination of market value and indicates what matters should be taken into consideration; that is a value which is commonly described as a value fixed as between a willing-seller and a willing-purchaser. Because the acquisition is compulsory, the law provides for payment of 15 per cent of the market value so understood by way of compensation for compulsory acquisition. It is this total amount determined under S. 23 that is referred to as the amount awarded in S. 34. ( 15 ) WE have already pointed out the difference between the provisions of s. 28 and S. 34. The decisions of both the Gujarat High Court and the Andhra Pradesh High Court dealt with cases of interest under S. 28. The Gujarat High Court makes the position quite clear by stating :"the claim for interest on the additional compensation claimed in the memorandum of appeal would stand or fall with the decision of the main claim and being merely an adjunct of the main claim, no court fee would be payable oh it. "the Andhra Pradesh High Court cites this passage with approval. Both the Courts held that the expression 'amount awarded' in S. 48 should be regarded as restricted to compensation strictly so called failing within the provisions of S. 23, and that interest was not covered by that expression The Andhra Pradesh High Court did not express any opinion on the question whether solatium is part of compensation. But the- discussion in the judgment, especially their reliance upon the language of S. 34, cannot lead to any conclusion other than what we have already stated above, viz. , that solatium is part of the compensation. ( 16 ) WE hold that the expression 'amount awarded' in S. 48 of the court Fees Act, means the amount computed under S. 23 of the Land acquisition Act inclusive of solatium. ( 17 ) THE next question is whether the said conclusion is sufficient to go to the next conclusion that no Court fee at all need be paid in respect of interest under S. 34 of the Land Acquisition Act. ( 17 ) THE next question is whether the said conclusion is sufficient to go to the next conclusion that no Court fee at all need be paid in respect of interest under S. 34 of the Land Acquisition Act. ( 18 ) SO far as interest under S. 28 of Land Acquisition Act is concerned, there is no doubt that it is dependent upon two factors,-the Court granting enhanced compensation and the Court exercising its discretion whether or not to grant interest. Interest under the said section therefore is undoubtedly an adjunct to the amount awarded as compensation, and for the reasons stated by the Gujarat High Court, no Court fee need be paid on it. ( 19 ) WE, however, find it difficult to hold that no Court fee at all need be paid in respect of interest payable under S. 34. The reason is the following : ( 20 ) THE conclusion that S. 48 of the Court Fees Act does not cover interest and the principle stated by the Supreme Court and in two other decisions cited above that interest is distinct and different from compensation under S. 23. inevitablv lead to the conclusion that an appeal so far as it relates to interest under S 34. is one. for payment of Court fee in respect of which no specific provision has been made If so. the matter comes directly under Art. 3 of the Second Schedule to the Court Fees Act. The relevant part of that Article reads :"memorandum of appeal from a decision or award or order. . . . . . not otherwise provided for when presented- (iii) to the High Court- (1) Where the order was passed by a sub-ordinate Court or other authority- (a) if the order relates to a suit or proceeding, the value of which exceeds one thounsand rupees. (Ten rupees ). (b) in any other case (Five rupees ). "as the amount claimed as interest in this appeal is more than Rs. 10,000, the proper Court fee payable would be Rs. 10. As interest under S. 34 is statutorily pavable and is therefore a relief which cannot possiblv be denied and does not depend upon any adjudication bv the Court itself, there is nothing surprising in the legislature "providing for what appears to be a nominal Court fee. 10,000, the proper Court fee payable would be Rs. 10. As interest under S. 34 is statutorily pavable and is therefore a relief which cannot possiblv be denied and does not depend upon any adjudication bv the Court itself, there is nothing surprising in the legislature "providing for what appears to be a nominal Court fee. ( 21 ) FOR these reasons, we hold that to the extent an appeal relates to interest payable under S. 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, the Cotirt fee in respect of it is payable under Art. 3 (iii) (1) of the Second Schedule to the Mysore Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act. ( 22 ) THE appellant, as alreadv stated, has now amended the valuation and prayed for the two reliefs in the alternative. We should therefore apply the principle of sub-sec. (2) of S. 6 of the Court Fees Act although in express terms the said sub-section refers only to a suit. ( 23 ) AS the appellant has paid the Court fee of Rs. 675 in respect of the first relief and the Court fee payable in respect of the second alternative relief is only Rs. 10, far below the Court fee paid oh the first relief, we hold that no further Court fee need be paid. --- *** --- .