CHANDRASHEKHAR, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an appeal under S. 11 of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of immovable Property Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Requisitioning act), from an Arbitrator's award of compensation for land requisitioned under S. 29 of the Defence of India Act, 1962. The appellant who has sought for enhancement of the compensation, has paid a Courtfee of rs. 15 only on the memorandum of appeal. The office of this Court raised an objection that ad valorem court fee should be paid on the amount of enhancement of compensation claimed in appeal. But the appellant maintained that the court fee paid by him was adequate. ( 2 ) A notice had been issued to the Second Addl. Govt. Advocate. He was represented by the learned Govl. Pleader who has supported the objection raised by the office. ( 3 ) IN Thyagaraju v. Union of India (1973) 2 Mys. L. J. 387. a Bench of this Court ruled that court fee payable in an appeal under S. ll of the Requisitioning Act, is governed by S. 48 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Karnataka Court Fees Act), and that court for should be computed on the difference between the amount claimed by the appellant and the amount awarded by the Arbitrator. That was also a case of requisitioning and not a case of acquisition of immovable property. ( 4 ) HOWEVER, Mr. R. Naranappa, learned Counsel for the appellante contended that in the aforesaid decision the distinction between acquisition and requisitioning had not been noticed, that S. 48 of the Karnataka court Fees Act is applicable only to an appeal relating to compensation for acquisition and not to an appeal relating to compensation for requisitioning and that an appeal relating to compensation for requisitioning is governed by Art. 3 of Sch. II to the Karnataka Court Fees Act. ( 5 ) S. 48 of the Court Fees Act, as amended by S. 2 of the Karnataka court-fees and Suits Valuation (Amendment) Act, 1969, reads : 48. . . II to the Karnataka Court Fees Act. ( 5 ) S. 48 of the Court Fees Act, as amended by S. 2 of the Karnataka court-fees and Suits Valuation (Amendment) Act, 1969, reads : 48. . . Fee on memorandum of appeal against decision, award or order Delating to compensation:-The fee payable under this Act on a memorandum of appeal against a decision or an award or 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 appellant. ( 6 ) ART. 1 of Sch. I to the Karnataka Court Fees Act provides inter alia, that ad valorem fee shall be paid on the memorandum of appeal at the rate of seventy five naye paise for Rs. 10 or part thereof of the value of the subject matter in dispute. ( 7 ) ART. 3 of Sch. II to the Karnataka Court Fees Act provides for a fixed court fee of Rs. 10 or Rs. 5 (according as the order in appeal relates to a suit or proceeding the value of which exceeds or does not exceed rs. 1,000) on a memorandum of appeal not otherwise provided for. ( 8 ) IF S. 48 of the Karnataka Court Fees Act has no application to an appeal from a decision, order or award relating to compensation for requisitioning cf immovable property, then such an appeal may come within the ambit of Art. 3 of Sch. II to the Act. ( 9 ) HENCE the material question is whether Sec. 48 of the Karnataka court Fees Act applies to an appeal relating tn compensation for requisitioning of property. That section speaks of acquisition only and not of requisitioning. But requisitioning is, in our opinion, a species of acquisition. In Sohon Lal v. Province of Bewgal AIR. 1946 Cal, 524. while considering the scope of S. 8 of the Indian Court Fees Act. That section speaks of acquisition only and not of requisitioning. But requisitioning is, in our opinion, a species of acquisition. In Sohon Lal v. Province of Bewgal AIR. 1946 Cal, 524. while considering the scope of S. 8 of the Indian Court Fees Act. 1870, which corresponds to S. 48 of the Karnataka Court Fees Act, 1958, this is what Ledge, J. said at p. 526 : the mere fact that Sec. 8 obviously contemplated the case ox one lump sum being paid as compensation does not seem to me conclusive, on the question whether the term acquisition' in the section includes temporary requisition: One can easily imagine cases in which Govt for some reason, needs to requisition land for a public purpose for a definite limited period say for five years; and the legislature might provide for such requisitioning and might further provide that title should remain in the original owner and one lump sum be paid as compensation for the requisitioning. In such a case though a case of temporary acquisition, it would be difficult to argue that S. 8 Court fees, Act did not apply. Therefore, it seems to me that the term 'acquisition in S. 8, Court " Fees Act, includes a temporary acquisition for a limited period. ( 10 ) WE are in respectful agreement with the aforesaid observations. We find no good ground to dissent from the ruling of this Court in Thyagaraju's case (l) that S. 48 of the Court fees Act applies to an appeal under s. 11 of the Requisitioning Act in respect of compensation for requisitioning of property. Hence, we uphold the office abjection and direct the appellant to pay ad valorem court fee an the memorandum of appeal. --- *** --- .