JUDGMENT : D.C. Gheewala, J. The lands belonging to the numerous claimants who are appellants in Cross-Appeals were sought to be acquired for the purpose of constructing Narmada High Level Canal. The said lands are situated at Village Zundal in Taluka Gandhinagar and notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) was published on 31.1.1963, notification under section 6 was published on 9.1.1969 and the Award of the learned Land Acquisition Officer was passed on 27.2.1978. Possession of the lands was taken on three different dates, namely 21.3.1978, 22.3.1978 and 23.3.1978 respectively. 2. The Land Owners in all these cases had claimed compensation at Rs. 5/- per sq. mt. uniformly. However, the learned Land Acquisition Officer while determining compensation awarded 23 paise per sq. mt. for jirayat land, 34 paise per sq. mt. for irrigated land, Rs. 11.6 paise per sq.mt. for Kharaba land which was cultivable and O-1 paise per sq. mt. for non-cultivable kharaba land. Being dissatisfied with the said Award the claimants carried the matter by way of Reference before the learned 2nd Extra Assistant Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) at Narol and it appears that the learned Judge relying upon the previous Award passed by the said Court in connection with the lands of the same District and similarly situated awarded Rs. 5/- per sq. mt. uniformly. It also appears that the learned District Government Pleader on behalf of the Government had very fairly conceded that Rs. 5/- per sq. mt. would be just and fair market price for the lands which were acquired. The learned 2nd Extra Assistant Judge also awarded interest at the rate of 6% per annum, from 1.2.1966 till the amounts were deposited in the Court and this interest seems to have been given for the simple reason that for a very long time after notification under section 4 was issued, acquisition proceedings were kept in doldrums. He also awarded 15% solatium on the amount of compensation awarded by him. Being aggrieved by the said order the Special Land Acquisition Officer, who was original opponent before the learned Judge, filed present First Appeals Nos. 216/85 to 249/ 85. The challenge in the said appeals seems to have been directed against the rate of interest which was stipulated at 6%. The claimants also filed Cross-Appeals which are admitted by us today and for which Mr. 216/85 to 249/ 85. The challenge in the said appeals seems to have been directed against the rate of interest which was stipulated at 6%. The claimants also filed Cross-Appeals which are admitted by us today and for which Mr. Vin, the learned Government Pleader has waived notice and which are numbered as Cross-Appeals Nos. 734 of 1985 to 767 of 1985 and therein they have offered two challenged against the award of the learned Judge and according to them under section 23(2) of the Act solatium at the rate of 30% should have been awarded as per the Amended Act No 68 of 1984. Their further challenge is one springing from the provisions of section 28 of the Act and according to them interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 21.3.1978 to 20.3.1979 that is for the period of one year from the date on which possession was taken, should be awarded and interest at the rate of 15% from 21.3.1979 that is after expiry of one year till the amount is deposited in the Court should have been awarded. 3. The third contention which Mr. Amin for the claimants raised was that the claimants should not be required to pay court-fees on the amount of solatium as well as the additional amount of interest that they claimed and the learned Extra Assistant Judge was distinctly in an error in ordering that the court-fees should be deducted from the amount which he had awarded. 4. We will first deal with the contention raised on behalf of the Government by Mr. Vin, the learned Government Pleader. According to Mr. Vin awarding of interest at the rate of 6% by the learned Extra Assistant Judge was clearly an error inasmuch as section 4(3) of the Land Acquisition (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1967 will have no application to the facts of the present case. It may be noted here that the interest at 6% seems to have been awarded under Sub-section (3) of section 4 of the Land Acquisition (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1967 (Act No. 13 of 1967) as the notification for the present acquisition was published before the Act of 1967 came into operation. This contention requires to be rejected on a plain reading of section 4(3) of the said Act of 1967. The Act specifically provides for interest at the rate of 6%. This contention requires to be rejected on a plain reading of section 4(3) of the said Act of 1967. The Act specifically provides for interest at the rate of 6%. It is a mandatory provision which lays down that the interest shall be at the rate of 6%. This contention of Mr. Vin, therefore, only requires to be stated for being rejected. 5. Next we come to the contentions raised by Mr. Amin which are mentioned above. Regarding solatium at 30% Mr. Amin drew our attention to Sub-section (2) of section 23 of the Act. Section 23 deals with the matters to be considered in determining compensation and after laying down the principles to be borne in mind under Sub-section (1). Sub-section (2) reads as under : "(2) In addition to the market value of the land, as above provided, the Court shall in every case award a sum of thirty per centum on such market-value in consideration of the compulsory nature of the acquisition." Sub-section (2) provides for solatium at the rate of 30% on such market value. The claimants, therefore, would of course be entitled to solatium at the rate of 30% on the amount of compensation which has been awarded by the learned Extra Assistant Judge. 6. That takes us to the second contention raised by Mr. Amin. According to Mr. Amin, in the instant case, while the lands are taken possession of on 21.3.78, compensation awarded by the learned Land Acquisition Officer being so meagre the matter had to be carried before the Court by way of Reference and the amount awarded by the (earned Extra Assistant Judge, should, therefore, carry interest at the rate of 9% for one year between 21.3.78 and 20.3.79 and thereafter it should carry interest at the rate of 15%, that is for the entire period between the date on which one year expired and the amount was deposited in the Court. Section 28 of the Act reads as under : "28. Collector may be directed to pay interest on excess compensation. Section 28 of the Act reads as under : "28. Collector may be directed to pay interest on excess compensation. If the sum which, in the opinion of the Court, the Collector ought to have awarded as compensation is in excess of the sum which the Collector did award as compensation, the award of the Court may direct that the Collector shall pay interest on such excess at the rate of nine 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: Provided that the award of the Court may also direct that where such excess or any part thereof is paid into Court after the date of expiry of a period of one year from the date on which possession is taken, interest at the rate of fifteen per centum per annum shall be payable from the date of expiry of the said period of one year on the amount of such excess or part thereof which has not been paid into Court before the date of such expiry". 7. Proviso to section 28 gives discretion to the Court to award interest at the rate of 15% after expiry of one year from the date of taking possession till such time as the amount awarded by the Court is realised or is deposited in the Court. Mr. Vin, the learned Government Pleader urged that this proviso only gives discretion to the Court and the interest at the rate of 15% being penal interest, in the instant case, on the date on which the learned Extra Assistant Judge passed the Award, he himself would not have awarded interest at the rate of 15% because the amended provisions came into operation subsequent thereto and hence this Court should not award penal interest on the said amount. The amount awarded by the Court by way of compensation in a Reference Case, if it is in excess of the amount which has been awarded by the Acquisition Officer, ultimately become "the Award of the Acquisition Officer and the Court only says that the amount awarded by the Acquisition Officer being so meagre, just and fair market value would be determined by the Court. Under the circumstances the conclusion arrived at by the learned Acquisition Officer being incorrect it is only sought to be corrected by the Court and in that case there is no reason as to why the claimants should not realise interest at the rate of 15% which the legislature has provided by a Proviso to the amended section 28. We, therefore, uphold the contention of Mr. Amin that interest at the rate of 15% should be awarded from 21.3.1979 till such period as the amount is deposited in the Court. 8. The above discussion would also take care of Mr. Vins contention that the interest at the rate of 15%, being penal interest, cannot have any retrospective application. This contention is springing from the misconception that the awarding of interest at the rate of 15% on the amount of compensation awarded is in the nature of a penalty imposed on account of the subsequent raising of the amount of compensation. We may with advantage here refer to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Joginder Singh v. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1985 SC 382. In the said case the Supreme Court was concerned with the amended Act of State of Haryana, being Act No. 8 of 1967 and particularly with section 28 and 34 of the Land Acquisition Act. In paragraph 3 of the Judgment the Supreme Court observed as under : "The right to compensation and the quantification thereof are two distinct concepts. The right to compensation arises when the land vests in the State while its quantification may be concluded much later. Although the process of quantification may pass through several stages, from the Land Acquisition Officer to the District Judge and thereafter to the High Court the process of quantification is merely one of computing the value of the land on the principles enacted in the Land Acquisition Act. All along, however, the right to the compensation so quantified refers back to the date of acquisition. The additional amount of compensation awarded by the District Judge or by the High Court represents the difference between the true value of the land on the one hand and the actual amount awarded on the other which fall short of the true value. The owner of the land is entitled to be said the true value of the land on the date of taking over the possession. The owner of the land is entitled to be said the true value of the land on the date of taking over the possession. Since, however, the true value is usually determined only after it is computed through a multi-tiered process passing through different levels of a hierarchical judicial structure by the very nature of things it takes some time before the true value can be finally determined, the fact that it is determined later does not mean that the right to the amount comes into existence at a later date. And if, as the High Court has held, interest at 6 per cent per annum rules from the date possession was taken in the case of compensation determined by the learned District Judge, there is no reason why the same rate should not be applied from the date when possession was taken in the case of enhancement affected by the High Court." 9. That takes us to the third contention raised by Mr. Amin. According to Mr. Amin the learned Extra Assistant Judge was in error in ordering that the court-fees payable by the claimants should be deducted from the amount of compensation. This contention is based on a decision of this Court in the case of Lady Tanumati v. Sp. Land Acquisition Officer, 1973 GLR 537 . This decision clearly lays down that no court-fees will be payable by the claimant when he approaches the Court under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for making a reference. Mr. Vin, the learned Government Pleader brought to our notice that the said decision is on anvil before the Supreme Court. However, for the present the full Bench decision holds the field and hence no court-fees will be payable and the claimants will be under a liability to furnish an undertaking to the Court, which Mr. Amin, informs that the claimants have already done before the trial Court, that in the event of the said Full Bench decision being reversed by the Supreme Court, the claimants shall be liable to pay the court-fees and the same shall be recoverable from them. The order of the learned Extra Assistant Judge, therefore, qua the deduction of the court-fees will have to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. The amount, if any, so deducted shall, therefore, be refunded to the claimants on their giving undertaking as stipulated above. 10. Mr. The order of the learned Extra Assistant Judge, therefore, qua the deduction of the court-fees will have to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. The amount, if any, so deducted shall, therefore, be refunded to the claimants on their giving undertaking as stipulated above. 10. Mr. Vin next contended that no court-fees shall be payable by the claimants on the amount of solatium. However, subsequently Mr. Amin conceded that solatium being part of compensation the claimants would be liable to pay court-fees thereon. It is now well settled that on the memorandum of appeal against the order of the District Court based on a reference under section 18 of the Act, the court-fees would be payable because the said decision reported at 14 G.L.R. (supra) has not application so far as the appeal against the award made by the District Court is concerned. Mr. Amin conceded that on the amount of solatium which is the subject matter of the present appeal, he will be paying the court-fees. 11. That brings us to the question as to whether the court-fees will be payable on the amount of additional interest or not. In this behalf Mr. Amin drew our attention to a decision of our own High Court in the case of Anandilal v. Addl Sp. L.A. Officer, A.I.R. 1965 212., where the Division Bench of this Court had an occasion to observe as under : "The scheme of the Land Acquisition Act itself shows that interest is treated as distinct from compensation for the purpose of that Act. Interest cannot, therefore, be regarded as forming part of compensation and the expression "amount awarded" and "amount claimed" 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. It must follow as a necessary consequence that where the memorandum of appeal is directed against an order relating to compensation, the court-fees must be computed only on the difference between the amount of compensation awarded to the appellant and the amount of compensation claimed by the appellant. It must follow as a necessary consequence that where the memorandum of appeal is directed against an order relating to compensation, the court-fees must be computed only on the difference between the amount of compensation awarded to the appellant and the amount of compensation claimed by the appellant. The claim of 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-fees would be payable on it." Under the circumstances, no court-fees will be payable on the amount of enhanced interest claimed by the claimants in these appeals. 12. In two of the appeals filed by the claimants viz. First Appeal No. 734 of 1985 and First Appeal No. 746 of 1985 the claimants have not furnished the certified copies of the bill of costs. These Appeals are cross-appeals against the appeals filed by the Government in which, on behalf of the Government, certified copies of the bills of costs are already preferred. Under the circumstances we hereby dispense with the claimants filing of certified copies of the bills of costs in the said two appeals and mere simple copies thereof shall be supplied by the claimants within a period of eight days from today. 13. The net result of the above discussion is that the appeals filed by the State are hereby dismissed and those tiled by the claimants are partly allowed to the extent indicated above. However, there shall be no order as to costs for the present group of Cross-Appeals. 14. Needless to add here that the interest at the rate of 9% and 15% as stated by us above shall also be realisable by the claimants on the amount of additional solatium which has been awarded by this Court. Appeal by the state dismissed.