SHIVARAJ PATIL, J. ( 1 ) THE claimant aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 18-1-1988, passed by the court of the additional civil judge, bagalkot, in l. a. c. No. 1081 of 1981, has filed this appeal with a prayer to modify the said judgment and award by granting further enhancement of compensation on various grounds. ( 2 ) THE facts essential for the disposal of this appeal are the following: an area of 5 acres 10 guntas of land in sy. No. 119/2 of muranal village in bagalkot taluk was acquired pursuant to the preliminary notification dated 18-1-1979 published under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the 'act 1894' ). The special land acquisition officer, malaprabha project, saundatti respondent herein, passed the award as per ext. D. 1. The said land was acquired for the purpose of construction of office and staff quarters of superintendent engineer, m. c. c. 2 and a. e. m. p. c. , bagalkot. The said land was converted for non-agricultural purpose as per the order dated 21-4-1973 of the special deputy commissioner, which fact is noted in the revenue records as per m. e. No. 1196 dated 21-11-1973. Even in the award ext. D. 1 it is so mentioned. In ext. D. 1 it is also stated that the said land is situated within the municipal limits of bagalkot city and is surrounded by non-agricultural plots, municipal lay-out, Mysore state housing board colony, industrial estate, union school, general hospital, new circuit house, apmc yard, spinning mill, shivanagar colony, Karnataka cement pipe factory, engineering college and campus, etc. The land acquisition officer awarded compensation in respect of this land at the rate of Rs. 1. 33/- per square feet. The appellant not being satisfied with the amount of compensation so awarded has filed application for reference as per ext. P. 1 claiming compensation at the rate of Rs. 15/- per square feet. The reference court on consideration of the material placed before it has awarded total compensation of Rs. 3,05,000/- in respect of the entire extent of the land measuring 5 acres 10 guntas in the said sy. No. 119/2 of muranal village included within the limits of bagalkot city municipality with other statutory benefits by the judgment and award under appeal. The appellant felt that the amount of compensation awarded by the court of reference was inadequate. 3,05,000/- in respect of the entire extent of the land measuring 5 acres 10 guntas in the said sy. No. 119/2 of muranal village included within the limits of bagalkot city municipality with other statutory benefits by the judgment and award under appeal. The appellant felt that the amount of compensation awarded by the court of reference was inadequate. Hence, this appeal. ( 3 ) SRI C. S. kothavale, learned counsel for the appellant, urged: (1) it is undisputed that the land in question was a converted land for non-agricultural use; it was acquired for construction of office and staff quarters; it is situated within the municipal limits of bagalkot city and is surrounded by non-agricultural plots, municipal lay-out, Mysore state housing board colony, industrial estate, union school, general hospital, new circuit house, apmc yard, spinning mill, shivanagar colony, Karnataka cement pipe factory, engineering college and campus, etc. ; the evidence of p. ws. 1 to 3 also supports about the potentiality of the acquired land and prominence of the locality in which it is situated and even the award ext. D. 1 also supports the case of the appellant in this regard. (2) the other portion of the same land to an extent of 4 acres 2 guntas was acquired pursuant to the preliminary notification dated 19-1-1978, which also belonged to this very appellant-society. On reference, in regard to that portion of the land, the reference court in l. a. c. No. 240 of 1981 determined the compensation at the rate of Rs. 3/- per square foot, which was correct, but the court below committed an error in deducting l/3rd of the total area towards formation of roads, drains, etc. And further deducting l/3rd of the amount towards the cost of development. The deduction given twice was bad in law. We may accept the award in l. a. c. No. 240 of 1981, as confirmed by this court in m. f. a. No. 929 of 1987 only as regards the rate of Rs. 3/- per square foot as the basis for the determination of compensation in this case also, but we should not allow deduction. In other words, his argument was we must accept the award in the aforementioned case only so far it relates to the rate fixed and not the deductions given. 3/- per square foot as the basis for the determination of compensation in this case also, but we should not allow deduction. In other words, his argument was we must accept the award in the aforementioned case only so far it relates to the rate fixed and not the deductions given. The amount of compensation awarded in l. a. c. No. 240 of 1981 works out to re. 1. 58 per square foot, but the amount of compensation awarded by the court below in the case on hand works out to re. 1. 33 per square foot, which is definitely inadequate and erroneous that too when the preliminary notification issued in this case was one year later and the area was developed. (3) taking into consideration the time gap between the period of preliminary notification dated 19-1-1978 pursuant to which land was acquired earlier and the preliminary notification dated 18-1-1979 read with erratum notification dated 29-2-1980 found at s1. No. 3 in reference column of ext. D. 1 to acquire the land in question, the court below ought to have given atleast 5% increase per annum in determining the market value on the ground of escalation for two years in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in raghunath and others v state of maharashtra and others. ( 4 ) SRI D'sa, learned government advocate, on the basis of the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant, fairly submitted that the amount of compensation may be given at the rate of compensation given per square foot in l. a. c. No. 240 of 1981, as confirmed by this court in m. f. a. No. 929 of 1987, more so, in view of the fact that in l. a. c. No. 240 of 1981 an area of 4 acres 2 guntas in this very sy. No. 119/2 of muranal village was acquired pursuant to the preliminary notification dated 19-1-1978. ( 5 ) WE have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel on both sides. ( 6 ) IT is undisputed that the land in sy. No. 119/2 of murana lvillage in bagalkot taluk totally measured 9 acres 12 guntas. Out of this land, an area of 4 acres 2 guntas belonging to this very appellant-society was acquired pursuant to the preliminary notification dated 19-1-1978 for similar purpose. ( 6 ) IT is undisputed that the land in sy. No. 119/2 of murana lvillage in bagalkot taluk totally measured 9 acres 12 guntas. Out of this land, an area of 4 acres 2 guntas belonging to this very appellant-society was acquired pursuant to the preliminary notification dated 19-1-1978 for similar purpose. On reference, at the instance of the appellant-society, in regard to that area acquired, reference court in l. a. c. no. 240 of 1981 has determined the amount of compensation, which works out to re. 1. 58ps. Per square foot after giving deduction of l/3rd area towards formation of roads, drains, etc. And further giving deduction of l/3rd amount towards the cost of development. The said award was confirmed by this court in m. f. a. No. 929 of 1987. The remaining portion of 5 acres 10 guntas in the same survey number is acquired pursuant to the preliminary notification dated 18-1-1979 in the case on hand. On reference, the court below on the basis of the award passed in the aforementioned l. a. c. No. 240 of 1981, as confirmed by this court in m. f. a. No. 929 of 1987 has awarded compensation of Rs. 3,05,000/-, which works out to re. 1. 33ps per square foot. The amount of compensation awarded in l. a. c. No. 240 of 1981 works out to re. 1. 58ps per square foot. The amount of compensation awarded in this case works out to re. 1. 33ps, which is definitely erroneous and incorrect even taking the award passed in l. a. c. No. 240 of 1981 as the basis. The learned government Advocate on this aspect submitted that the deduction of the area for roads, drains and lounge space given in the earlier case was 20. 99%, but in the present case deduction for the same purpose was given at 33. 33%. However, he submitted that since the award passed in l. a. c. No. 240 of 1981 has become final and the amount of compensation in this case also may be determined at the rate of re. 1. 58ps. Per square foot, we find good reason in this submission. Hence, we have no hesitation to award compensation at the rate of re. 1. 1. 58ps. Per square foot, we find good reason in this submission. Hence, we have no hesitation to award compensation at the rate of re. 1. 58ps per square foot on the basis of the rate adopted in respect of the remaining area of this very land in l. a. c. No. 240 of 1981. We are unable to agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that we must award the compensation at the rate of Rs. 3/- per square foot as the rate determined by the court below in l. a. c. No. 240 of 1981 without giving deductions. The learned counsel for the appellant wants us to accept that part of the award which is advantageous to the appellant and reject the deductions given in the area required for the purpose of roads, drains, etc. And the deduction of cost towards developmental charges. His argument was that even in the earlier case, if a wrong procedure was adopted by the court below to the determination of the market value, the appellant is not bound by it. We may add here that the remaining portion of the land measuring 4 acres 2 guntas also belonged to this very appellant-society. The court of reference awarded the compensation at that rate adopting the procedure of giving deductions as already stated in l. a. c. 240 of 1981, which award was confirmed by this court in m. f. a. No. 929 of 1987. The said award has become final. The appellant was contented with the same. In our considered opinion it is now not open to the appellant to contend otherwise. In other words, the appellant cannot approbate and reprobate. ( 7 ) WE also find some force in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that there was a time gap of about two years between the preliminary notification issued on 19-1-1978 pursuant to which 4 acres and 2 guntas of land was acquired and the preliminary notification dated 18-1-1979 read with erratum notification dated 29-2-1980 pursuant to which 5 acres 10 guntas of land in question is acquired. It is in the evidence that area is surrounded by the developed areas and as such appreciation of the land value has to be given. It is in the evidence that area is surrounded by the developed areas and as such appreciation of the land value has to be given. From the material on record it is clear that the land in question was a converted land for non-agricultural use; it was acquired for construction of office and staff quarters; it is situated within the municipal limits of bagalkot city and is surrounded by non-agricultural plots, municipal lay-out, Mysore state housing board colony, industrial estate, union school, general hospital, new circuit house, apmc yard, spinning mill, shivanagar colony, Karnataka cement pipe factory, engineering college and campus, etc. P. ws 1 to 3 spoke about the potentiality of this acquired land and prominence of the locality, which is so mentioned in the award ext. D. 1 also. The learned government Advocate also does not dispute that the appellant is entitled for some more compensation keeping in view the appreciation of the land value for the time gap between the two preliminary notifications. We think it appropriate to take the appreciation of land value at 10% covering the time gap between preliminary notifications confining it to this case alone having regard to the developments that have taken place around the land and its potentialities. ( 8 ) IF the overall rate of re. 1. 58ps. Per square foot is adopted, the market value of the acquired land would be Rs. 3,61,330-20ps as against Rs. 3,05,000/- awarded by the court below. Hence, we determine the market value of this land at Rs. 3,61,500/- by rounding off Rs. 3,61,330-20ps. The appreciation of the land value at 10% comes to Rs. 36,150/ -. Thus, the total amount of compensation works out to Rs. 3,97,650/ -. We round it off to Rs. 3,98,000/ -. Thus, we determine and award the compensation for the land in question at Rs. 3,98,000/ -. In that view, the judgment and award under appeal are to be modified. ( 9 ) IN our order dated 16-9-1993, passed on two i. as, dated 2-9-1993 and 15-9-1993 dealing with the amendment application filed by the appellant we have stated that the question whether the appellant has to pay court-fees on the additional amount that is awardable under Section 23 (1-a) of the Act, 1894 will be considered at the time of disposal of this appeal. Hence, we now deal with that question. Hence, we now deal with that question. ( 10 ) SRI C. S. Kothavale, learned counsel for the appellant argued that under Section 23 (1-a) of the Act, 1894 in addition to the market value of the land, the court shall in every case award an amount calculated at the rate of 12% per annum on such market value for the period commencing on and from the date of the publication of the notification under Section 4 (1), in respect of such land to the date of the award of the collector, or the date of taking possession of the land, whichever is earlier. According to him, awarding of such amount is automatic and flows from the very statute and claim in this regard need not be made by the claimant. This being the position, when the appellant need not claim the amount awardable under Section 23 (1-a), question of its paying court-fees on the amount to be so awarded does not arise. He pointed out that there is difference in regard to the awarding of amount under Section 23 (1-a) and Section 23 (2 ). He also drew our attention to Section 34 of the Act, 1894 in regard to the payment of interest on the amount awarded. In support of his submissions, he cited the following decisions: (1) d. m. jawarilal and others v special land acquisition officer, citb, Bangalore; (2) assistant commissioner-cum-land acquisition officer v mallaiah. ( 11 ) SRI D'sa, the learned government advocate, argued that the appellant has to pay court-fees even with regard to the amount to be awarded under Section 23 (1-a) and in this regard the Provisions of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 (for short the Act, 1958) are clear. He pointed out to Section 48 of the said act and submitted that the expressions 'amount awarded' and 'amount claimed' include any other additional sum payable in accordance with law providing for acquisition in consideration of the compulsory nature of the acquisition. He pointed out to Section 48 of the said act and submitted that the expressions 'amount awarded' and 'amount claimed' include any other additional sum payable in accordance with law providing for acquisition in consideration of the compulsory nature of the acquisition. According to him, the additional amount to be awarded under Section 23 (1-a) is an additional amount to be awarded on the basis of the market value of the land, it is not in consideration of the compulsory nature of the acquisition, as distinguished from the language of Section 23 (2); the Provisions of Section 23 (1-a) and Section 23 (2) of the Act, 1894 are distinct and deal with different aspects and are intended to serve different objects and when the language of Section 48 of the Act, 1958 along with the explanation is quite clear, wherein it is stated that the amount awarded and amount claimed include any other additional sum payable in accordance with law providing for acquisition in consideration of the compulsory nature of the acquisition, there is no escape from payment of court-fees in respect of the additional amount to be awarded under Section 23 (1-a) of the Act, 1894. ( 12 ) IN order to appreciate the rival contentions on the payment of court-fees for the additional amount to be awarded under Section 23 (1-a) of the Act, 1894, we consider it appropriate to extract Section 48 of the Act, 1958 with explanation thereto, which reads:"48. 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 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 applicant. Explanation: for the purpose of this Section the expressions of 'amount awarded' and 'amount claimed' include any other additional sum payable in accordance with the law providing for acquisition in consideration of the compulsory nature of the acquisition". ( 13 ) A plain reading of the above Section shows that the court-fee has to be paid on a memorandum of appeal challenging an award relating to compensation for acquisition of the property for public purpose on the difference between the amount awarded and the amount claimed. ( 13 ) A plain reading of the above Section shows that the court-fee has to be paid on a memorandum of appeal challenging an award relating to compensation for acquisition of the property for public purpose on the difference between the amount awarded and the amount claimed. The amount awarded and the amount claimed include any other additional sum payable in accordance with the law provided for acquisition in consideration of the compulsory nature of the acquisition as per the explanation to Section 48. ( 14 ) AN amount calculated at the rate of 12% per annum for the period mentioned in Section 23 (1-a) is to be awarded in addition to the market value and it is in consideration of the compulsory nature of the acquisition. Thus, amount to be awarded under Section 23 (1-a) is covered by the aforementioned explanation to Section 48 of the Act, 1958. Hence, the appellant has to pay the court-fees on the amount to be awarded under Section 23 (1-a) of the act. ( 15 ) THE two decisions cited by the learned counsel for the appellant in our opinion do not help the appellant. In the case of assistant commissioner-cum-land acquisition officer v mallaiah, the question that came up for consideration was whether additional amount under Section 23 (1-a) of the Act, 1894 is awardable for the lands, the possession of which had been taken by the deputy commissioner (land acquisition officer) prior to the preliminary notification under Section 4 (1) of the act. The division bench of this court took the view that the purpose of Section 23 (1-a) is to compensate the claimant for the said period of suspense or waiting and non-effective ulitisation of the land with the amount of 12% per annum on the market value of the land between the date on which a proposal for acquisition of land is made and the date on which such proposal becomes conclusive by making an award or by taking possession. In the light of the same, the division bench held that the additional amount cannot be awarded under Section 23 (1-a) of the Act, 1894 for the land, possession of which had been taken by the deputy commissioner prior to the preliminary notification published under Section 4 (1) of the act. In the light of the same, the division bench held that the additional amount cannot be awarded under Section 23 (1-a) of the Act, 1894 for the land, possession of which had been taken by the deputy commissioner prior to the preliminary notification published under Section 4 (1) of the act. Thus, the said decision does not help the appellant on the question of payment of court-fees in respect of the amount to be awarded under Section 23 (1-a) of the Act, 1894. The full bench of this court, in d. m. jawarilal and others v special land acquisition officer, citb, Bangalore, has held that:"in an appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition 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 Section 48 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958". this judgment was rendered in m. f. a. No. 159 of 1975, disposed of on 28-2-1975. From the said judgment it followed that the court-fees were not required to be paid on the solatium under Section 23 (2) of the Act, 1894. Explanation to Section 48 of the Act, 1958 was added by act No. 80 of 1976 and Section 23 (1-a) of the Act, 1894 was inserted by act No. 68 of 1984. Under the circumstances, in view of the clear language of Section 48 read with the explanation of the Act, 1958 we do not find any difficulty in holding that the court-fees has to be paid on the additional amount to be awarded under Section 23 (1-a) of the Act, 1894. Hence, we accordingly hold that the appellant has to pay court-fees on the additional amount to be awarded under Section 23 (1-a) of the Act, 1894. ( 16 ) IN the result, for the reasons stated, we pass the following order: (1) this appeal is allowed in part modifying the judgment and award under appeal awarding compensation at Rs. 3,98,000/- as against the compensation of Rs. 3,05,000/- awarded in respect of the entire extent of the property, that is 5 acres 10 guntas in sy. No. 119/2 of muranal village (now included within the limits of bagalkot city municipality ). 3,98,000/- as against the compensation of Rs. 3,05,000/- awarded in respect of the entire extent of the property, that is 5 acres 10 guntas in sy. No. 119/2 of muranal village (now included within the limits of bagalkot city municipality ). (2) the appellant shall be entitled to solatium at 30% and an amount calculated at 12% per annum on the market value for the period commencing from 18-1-1979 (that is the date "of issuing preliminary notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act, 1894) till the date of award of the deputy commissioner or the date of taking possession of the land, whichever is earlier and interest on the enhanced compensation at the rate of 9% per annum and in case the amount of compensation is not deposited within one year from the date of dispossession, then future interest at 15% per annum, less the amount already paid to the appellant or deposited in court subject to clearing of all outstanding dues, if any, on the acquired land. (3) the benefits of the amended Land Acquisition Act, 1894 given are subject to the final decision of the Supreme Court in k. s. pariapoornan and others v state of Kerala and others. The appellant shall be entitled to withdraw such amount subject to furnishing security to the satisfaction of the reference court. (4) the appellant shall pay the court-fees on the additional amount awarded under Section 23 (1-a) of the Act, 1894. --- *** --- .