JUDGMENT : These appeals arise in connection with acquisition of land for the Government Medical College at Kottayam. As against the compensation of Rs. 20/- per cent allowed by the Land Acquisition Officer, the Additional Subordinate Judge, Kottayam, allowed land value at the rate of Rs. 30/-. In these appeals, the claim made by the appellant is that the rate should be enhanced to Rs. 90 per cent. 2. Though it is stated in the judgment that the declaration of acquisition was in May 1961, it is admitted that the acquisition was for the second stage of the Medical College, Kottayam and that it was on a later date. There were a number of cases in connection with the land acquired for the second stage of the Medical College. Appeals were filed in this court against those decisions and this court raised the land value to Rs. 90/-. (See A. S.294 of 1968). There is no case that the land involved in these cases stands on a different footing. It is, therefore, only fair to fix the compensation at the rate, adopted in other similar cases. The value of the land in both the cases is accordingly fixed at 90/- per cent. 3. There is a further claim made by the appellant regarding the interest on land value. The acquisitions in these cases were under the Travancore Land Acquisition Act which allowed interest at 6% from the date of taking possession. The trial court omitted to notice this fact and allowed interest only at 4%. The appellant prays for an enhancement of the rate of interest. 4. The respondent-State has no case that under the relevant Act the appellant is not entitled to claim interest at 6% from the date of taking possession of the property. The objection, however, is that no court-fee has been paid on the interest portion of the claim. Therefore, the point for consideration is whether the appellant should be denied enhanced interest at the rate of 6% for the reason that no court-fee has been paid. 5. Under S.51 of the Court Fees Act, the fee payable on a memorandum of appeal against an order relating to compensation for acquisition of property for public purposes is to be computed on the difference between the amount awarded and the amount claimed by the appellant. No mention is made in the section about interest. 5. Under S.51 of the Court Fees Act, the fee payable on a memorandum of appeal against an order relating to compensation for acquisition of property for public purposes is to be computed on the difference between the amount awarded and the amount claimed by the appellant. No mention is made in the section about interest. The question as to whether court-fee should be paid on interest came up for consideration in Anandilal v. Additional Special Land , Acquisition Officer (AIR. 1965 Gujarat 212) when a similar provision in the Bombay Court Fees Act had to be interpreted. It was held that interest cannot be regarded as forming part of compensation and the expressions "amount awarded" and "amount claimed" in the concerned section of the Court Fees Act cannot on a true construction include the amount of interest awarded under the award and the amount of interest claimed by the appellant in the memorandum of appeal. The necessary consequence is that where a memorandum of appeal is directed against an order relating to compensation court fee need be computed only on the difference between the amount of compensation awarded to the appellant and the amount of compensation claimed by him. The claim of interest on additional compensation would stand or fall with the decision of the main claim and being merely an adjunct of the main claim, no court fee need be paid on it. Like views were taken regarding court fee on interest in Satyanarayana Rao v. Revenue Divisional Officer (AIR. 1969 Andhra Pradesh 55 (F. B.)) and in J. Pattammal v. Collector (AIR. 1972 Madras 158 (F. B.)). S.52 of the Kerala Court Fees Act deals with appeals generally and Explanation (3) makes specific mention of interest. Evidently in view of the special provision contained in S.51, the general provision has no application to appeals in land acquisition cases. It is not stated in S.51 that court fee should be paid on memorandum of appeal dealing with interest. The objection based on non-payment of court fee is, therefore, overruled. 6. T may refer here to the ruling in Raghubans Narain v. Government of U. P. (AIR. 1967 S.C. 465) which deals with interest in cases of compensation under S.28 of the Land Acquisition Act. The objection based on non-payment of court fee is, therefore, overruled. 6. T may refer here to the ruling in Raghubans Narain v. Government of U. P. (AIR. 1967 S.C. 465) which deals with interest in cases of compensation under S.28 of the Land Acquisition Act. The Supreme Court held: "In its plain language the discretion that is conferred on the Court is whether in the given circumstances of a particular case the court should award interest or not. The words "may direct" mean that it is discretionary on the part of the court to grant or refuse to grant interest. But the words following those words, viz., "the Collector shall pay interest on such excess at the rate of six per centum per annum" would mean that once the discretion to grant interest is exercised there is no further discretion and the interest if awarded has to be at the rate of six per centum per annum." In the light of the above, the appellant is entitled to interest at 6% per annum on the amount of excess compensation decreed in his favour. The appeals are accordingly allowed with costs. Allowed