( 1 ) A Division Bench of this Court has referred the following question of law for the opinion of the Full Bench :" In an appeal under S. 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, seeking for enhancement of the compensation, should the amount of statutory allowance proportionate to the amount of such enhancement, be included in the value of the subject-matter of appeal for purpose of court fee? " ( 2 ) WE have heard the arguments of Mr, S. Rangaraj, learned Counsel for the appellants-claimants, and of the learned Addl Govt Advocate who has appeared in pursuance of a notice issued under S. 19 of the Karnataka court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to, aft the court Fees Act ). ( 3 ) MR. RANGARAJ contended that in an appeal under Sec. 54 of the Land acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the L. A. Act), seeking for enhancement of compensation the amount of statutory allowance proprotionate to the enhancement of compensation sought for in the appeal, need not be included in the value of the, subject matter of appeal for the purposo of court-fee payable on the memorandum of appeal, while the learned addl Govt Advocate contended that such amount should be included for computation of such court-fee. ( 4 ) IN order to appreciate the rival contentions of learned Councel, it is necessary to set out the relevant provisions of the L. A. Act and the Court fees Act. Sub-sec (2) of S. 9 of the L. A. Act provides, inter alia, that the notice issued to persons interested in the land acquired, shall require them to state the amount and particulars of their claim to compensation. The relevant portions of S. 24 of the L. A. Act read :" 23. Matters to be considered in determining compensation.- (1) In determining the amount of compensation to be awarded for land acquired under this Act, the Court shall take into consideration- first the market-value of the land at the date of the publication of the notification under S. 4, sub-sec (1); (2) In addition to the market value of the land, as above provided, the Court shall in every case award a sum of fifteen per centum on such market value, in consideration of the compulsory nature of the acquisition. " ( 5 ) SUB-FLEE (1) cf Section 26 of the L. A. Act. " ( 5 ) SUB-FLEE (1) cf Section 26 of the L. A. Act. reads ;" 26. Form of awards- (1) Every award under this Part shall be in writing signed by the Judge, and shall specify the amount awarded under clause first of sub-sec (1) of S. 23, and also the amounts (if any) respectively awarded under each of the other clauses of the same sub-section, together with the grounds of awarding each of the said amounts. "section 48 of the Court Fees Act reads :" 48. . Fee on memorandum of appeal against order relating to compensation :-The fee payable under this Act on a memorandum of appeal against a decision or 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. "the main part of Section 49 of the Court Fees Act reads :" 49. Appeals. The feet payable in an appeal shall be the same as fee that would be payable in the Court of first instance on the sub- ject matter of the appeal: " ( 6 ) THE answer to the question whether in an appeal under S. 54 of the l. A. Act seeking for enhancement of the compensation, the amount of statutory allowance proportionate to such enhancement, should be, included for the purpose ok court-fee depends upon the meaning of the words the amount awarded' and 'the amount claimed' occurring in S. 48 of the court Fees Act. If the words 'amount awarded' mean not only what has teen awarded under sub-sec (1) of S. 23 of the L. A. Act but also the amount awarded under sub-sec (2) of that section, and likewise if the words 'amount claimed' include not only what is payable under 3. 23 (1) of the l. A. Act, but also solatium, then it is obvious that the appellant has to pay court-fee on solatium proportionate to the enhancement of compensation claimed in the appeal. 23 (1) of the l. A. Act, but also solatium, then it is obvious that the appellant has to pay court-fee on solatium proportionate to the enhancement of compensation claimed in the appeal. On the other hand if the words 'amount awarded' mean only what has been awarded, under S. 23 (1) of the L. A. Act and like- wise if the words 'amount claimed' mean only what is payable under s. 23 (1) of the L. A. Act; the appellant need not pay court-fee on solatium proportionate to the enhancement of compensation claimed in the appeal. The meaning of the expressions 'compensation' and 'market value', in the L. A Act, have been stated thus by the Supreme Court in Union of india v. Ram Mehar AIR. 1973 SC. 305, 308. :" The additional amount of 15 per cent certainly forms part of the amount of compensation because under Sec. 23 the cornpensaion is to consist of what is provided for in sub-sec (1) and the additional amount of 15 per cent on the market value of the land acquired. But compensation and market value are distinct expressions and have been used as such in the Acquisition Act. . . . . The key 1o the meaning of the word 'compensation' is to be found in S. 23 (1) and consists of (a)the market value of the land and (b) the sum of 15 per cent on such market value which is stated to be the consideration for compulsory nature, of the acquisition. Market value therefore is only a component in the determination of the amount of compensation," ( 7 ) FROM the above passage, it is clear that solatium is a part of compan- sation or compulsory acquisition of land under the L. A. Act. As to the meaning of the expression 'amount awarded' occurring in S. 48 of the Andhra Pradesh Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 (herein-after referred to as mae Andhra Court Fees Ac') which is in pari maeria with S. 48 of the Karnataka Court Fees Act, Jaganmohan Reddy, CJ. ,, who delivered the leading opinion of the Full Bench in K. A. Swamy v. Land acquisition Officer AIR. 1970 AP. 139 FB said at page 143 that while solatium under 3. ,, who delivered the leading opinion of the Full Bench in K. A. Swamy v. Land acquisition Officer AIR. 1970 AP. 139 FB said at page 143 that while solatium under 3. 23 (2) cf L. A. Act may form part of compensation to be awarded by the Collector under S. 11, it does not form part of the award which the Court has to, psss under S. 26 of the L. A. Act though it (the Court) is required under s. 23 (2) cf the L. A. Act to add 15% on the amount of the market value awarded by it, which will be in the nature of a direction to the Collector to pay that amount just in the same way as he is directed to pay interest. As regards the expression 'amount claimed', his Lordship observed that under the provisions of the L. A. Act what is required to be claimed by a person interested in the land acquired, is compensation for his interest in land, that there is no specific mention either in S. 9 or S. 11 of the L. A. Act that he should claim solatium or interest and that since under S. 15 of the l. A. Act the Collector is required to be guided by the provisions of Ss. 23 and 24 of the L. A. Act he has to pay solatium even though it is not claimed by such person. In the above line of reasoning, Jaganmohan Reddy, CJ. came to the conclusion that since solatium under S. . 23 (2) of the L. A. Act forms part of heither the claim or the award, no court-fee is payable on the amount of solatium proportionate to the enhancement claimed in an appeal under section 54 of the L. A. Act. ( 8 ) IN Abdul Sultan v. Collector, Ahmednagar AIR. 1968 Bom. 390. , a Division Bench of bombay High Court also took the view that the words 'amount awarded' occurring in sub-sec (1) of S. 7 of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1939, (which is in pan materia with S. 48 of the Karnataka Court Fees Ad) mean the amount awarded under 3. 23 (1) of the L. A Act and not the whole amount of compensation. 23 (1) of the L. A Act and not the whole amount of compensation. The reasoning oi their Lordships for coming to this conclusion, is as follows: Sub-sec (1) of S. 25 of L. A. Act provides, inter alia, that when a person having interest in land has made a claim to compensation the amount awaidcd to him by the Court shall not exceed the amount claimed by him pursuant to a notice given to him under S. 9 of the l A. Act. It is impossible to think that the amount claimed by him should include solatium which the Court is under a statutory obligation to give him. There may be a person who claims the exact value of the land acquired. If the Collector finds that the amount claimed is the exact value of such land, he is bound to award solatium in addition to such value of land. There is nothing in the L. A. Act which requires such person to claim solatium before the Collector or the Court. Hence he is not required to claim solatium in the memorandum of appeal in an appeal u/s. 54 of the L,a. Act. At any rate, under the L. A. Act, it is possible to read the words 'amount awarded' to mean the amount awarded under S. 23 (1) of the L. A. Act and that since the Court Fees Act is a fiscal statute, the words 'amount awarded' should be construed in favour of the subject and the appellant should not be called upon to pay court-fee on solatium proportionate to the compensation claimed in the appeal under S. 54 of the L. A. Act. ( 9 ) ON the other hand, in Chandanlal v. . Eastern Railway AIR. 1967 Guj. 182,, N. V. Vakil, j. , took the view that the expressions 'the amount awarded' and 'the amount claimed' occurring in S. 7 (1) of the Bombay Court Fees Act should be understood as the amount of compensation awarded and the amount of compensation claimed respectively having regard to the context in which those two expressions are used. 1967 Guj. 182,, N. V. Vakil, j. , took the view that the expressions 'the amount awarded' and 'the amount claimed' occurring in S. 7 (1) of the Bombay Court Fees Act should be understood as the amount of compensation awarded and the amount of compensation claimed respectively having regard to the context in which those two expressions are used. His Lordship observed that having regard to the fact that law makes the amount of solatium also a part of compensation to be awarded when the person having interest in the acquired land makes a claim for an increased amount of compensation, solatium becomes a part of his claim unless he were to state in the memorandum of appeal that he did not claim any amount of solatium that he may become entitled on the increase in the amount that may be awarded under S. 23 (1) of the l. A. Act and that so long as solatium is not specifically stated to have been given up, it would remain a part of the claim before the appellate Court. In that view, his Lordship held that court-fee payable on the memorandum of appeal in an appeal under S. 54 of the L. A. Act should be computed on the difference between the amount of compensation awarded and the amount of compensaion claimed in the appeal including the amount of solatium proportionate to the enhanced amount claimed in the appeal. Solatium is in our opinion, merely an adjunct to the main amount of compensation payable under S. 23 (1) of the L. A. Act and the claim to solatium stands or falls with the decision on the main claim. As pointed out by Allahabad High Court in Mohammad Sajjad Alikhan v. Secy of State air. 1933 All. 742. , awarding the amount as solatium, is a statutory duty and therefore, it (solatium) need not bet claimed. ( 10 ) IN State of Maharashtra v. Mishrilal Tarachand Lodra AIR. 1964 SC. 457, the Supreme Court considered the question whether in an appeal an appellant is bound to pay court-fee on the amount of pendente lite interest decreed in a suit. In holding that he need no;t pay court-fete on such interest, this is what the Supreme Court said at page 459:"on what principle are these amounts not treated as forming part of the value, of the subject matter in dispute in appeal?f? In holding that he need no;t pay court-fete on such interest, this is what the Supreme Court said at page 459:"on what principle are these amounts not treated as forming part of the value, of the subject matter in dispute in appeal?f? Such value is to be determined on the substantial allegation in the plaint or from the pleas in the memorandum of appeal with respect to the point in dispute between the parties and sought to, be determined by the Court, such are necessarily the points affecting the rights of the parties sought to be adjudicated by the Court. Claims not based on any asserted right butt dependent on the decision of the disputed right and beliefs in regard to which are in the discretion of the Court do not come within the purview of the expression 'subject matter in dispute in the plaint or memo of appeal'. " ( 11 ) THOUGH solatium, unlike interest, is not in the discretion of the Court and the Court is bound to award it (solatium), the main reasoning of the, supreme Court, namely, that claims not based on any asserted right but dependent on the decision of disputed right, do not come within the purview of the expression 'subject matter of dispute in the memorandum of appeal', applies to the claim for solatium in an appeal under S. 54 of the. Land Acquisition Act. ( 12 ) IN K. A. Swmy v. LAO, Parthasarathi, J. , in his separate opinion concurring with the leading opinion delivered by Jaganmohan Reddy, CJ. , gave the following additional reason for the conclusion that no court-fee is payable on solatium proportionate to the enhanced amount claimed in an appeal under S. 54 of the L. A. Act: S. 49 of the Andhra Court Fees Act (which corresponds to S. 49 of the Karnataka Court Fees Act) which is a general provision applicable to appeals, provides for payment of court-fee in respect of the 'subject matter' of appeals and S. 48 of that Act (which corresponds to S. 48 of the Karnataka Court Fees Act) which is intended for a special category of appeals, (namely, appeals against orders, awards and decisions relating to compensation) provides that court-fee is payable, on the difference between the amount awarded and the amount claimed. If the words 'the amount awarded' should include the entire amount payable to the owner of the land acquired and takes in solatium also, and likewise the words 'the amount claimed' include solatium also, then the entire subject matter of the appeal becomes the basis of valuation for court-fee and there is no need for the special provision in S. 48 and that section would be redundant. A construction that leads to, the conclusion that there is a superfluity of provisions in a legislative enactment, should be avoided. When the legislature enacts a particular provision in a, statute, the presumption is that it is providing for something other than that in the general provision. The only way in which Sac. 48 of the Andhra court Fees Act (which corresponds to S. 48 of the Karnataka Court Fees act) can be interpreted as not to render that section superfluous, would be to, construe the expressions 'the amount awarded' and the 'amount claimed' as not including solatium. 1. We are in respectful agreement. with the above line of reasoning of parthasarathy, J. For the above reasons, the view taken by the Full Bench of Andhra pradesh High Court and the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, should, in our opinion, be, preferred to the view taken by the, Gujarait High court, the answer to the question referred to the Full Bench, should, in our opinion, be as follows :" In an appeal under S. 54 of the L. A. Act, seeking for enhancement of the compensation, the amount of statutory allowance proportionate to the amount of such enhancement, need not be included for the purpose of court-fee payable under S. 48 of the Karnataka Court fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958. " --- *** --- .