RAVEENDRAN, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition act, 1894 (LA Act for Short ). The Court fee is payable under Section 48 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 ('cf act' for short ). ( 2 ) THE appellant (Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board) has challenged the judgment and award dated 20. 7. 2000 in LAC no. 204/1996, on the file of City Civil Court, Bangalore. The LAO had passed an award dated 22-10-1993 fixing the market value as rs. 40,000. 00 per acre for an extent of 1 acre 18 guntas. The reference Court instead determining the market value, fixed the total compensation, inclusive of Statutory benefits as Rs. 12,00,000. 00 per acre. The sum awarded as compensation not only includes the market value under Section 23 (1) of LA Act, but also the Additional amount under Section 23 (1a) of LA Act and solatium under Section 23 (2) of LA Act. The increase made by the reference Court over and above the award of the Land Acquisition Officer is the subject matter of the challenge in this appeal. ( 3 ) AT the outset, it requires to be pointed out that awarding a lumpsum without disclosing the breakup of market value, additional amount and solatium is contrary to the method of determination of compensation specified under the LA Act. While awarding compensation, the reference Court is required to determine the market value under the first clause of Section 23 (1) and damages if any payable under. Clauses 2 to 6 of Section 23 (1) which together constitute the compensation amount. The Court should, then award additional compensation under Section 23 (1a) and solatium under section 23 (2 ). However, award of a lumpsum in this case may be justifiable on the peculiar facts of this case. Be that as it may. ( 4 ) THE appellant contends that it is liable to pay Court Fee only on the difference between the market, value fixed by the Reference court under Section 23 (1) with solatium under Section 23 (2) and the market value with solatium fixed by the LAO. The appellant contends that it is not liable to pay the Court Fee on the difference in additional amount payable under Section 23 (1a ). The appellant contends that it is not liable to pay the Court Fee on the difference in additional amount payable under Section 23 (1a ). Even though the total compensation awarded by the reference Court works out to rs. 17,40,000/- (at the rate of Rs. 12 lakhs per acre for 1 acre 18 guntas), the Appellant has shown the compensation (Market Value) determined by the Reference Court as Rs. 7,34,695. 29 and the solatium as Rs. 2,19,267. 15 in all as Rs. 9,53,962. 44 and deducted the amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer as compensation as Rs. 58,000/- plus solatium of Rs. 17,400. 00 in all Rs. 75,400/- and arrived at the difference on which Court fee payable as rs. 8,74,563/. ( 5 ) ACCORDING to the registry, the Court fee is payable on the difference between the amount awarded by reference Court (Rs. 17,40,000/- being the total amount awarded including the statutory benefits) and amount awarded by the Land Acquisition officer (Rs. 1,38,059. 00 being the total amount awarded with statutory benefits ). The registry seeks payment of Court fee on a sum of Rs. 16,01,941/-, ( 6 ) IN view of the rival contentions, the following two questions arise for consideration:a) for calculating the difference between the 'amount awarded' and 'amount claimed', whether only the amount awarded under Section 23 (1) and solatium under Section 23 (2) should be reckoned or whether the amount awardeds under Section 23 (1a) should also be reckoned. b) What is the Court Fee payable. Re. Point (a) ( 7 ) SECTION 23 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 and Section 48 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 have undergone periodical changes. 7. 1) Section 23 of LA Act earlier consisted of only two Sub-sections, that is Sub-section (1) relating to determination of compensation (of which market value is the main item) and sub-section (2) relating to solatium. 7. 2) Section 48 of the CF Act, as it stood earlier read as follows: "the fee payable under this act on a memorandum of appeal against a decision or award or order relating to compensation under any Act for the time being in force for the acquisition of properly for public purpose shall be computed on the difference between the amount awarded and the amount claimed by the applicant. "7. "7. 3) Considering these provisions, a Full Bench of this Court in d. M. JAWARILAL vs SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, c. I. T. B. , BANGALORE held that in an appeal seeking enhancement of compensation, the amount of statutory allowance (solatium), proportionate to the amount of such enhancement, need not be included for the purpose of Court Fee payable under Section 48 of the CF Act. This was on the reasoning that solatium was not part of 'compensation', but was only an adjunct to the amount awarded as compensation. 7. 4) Thereafter Section 48 of the CF Act was amended by ACT 80/1976, by adding the following explanation (which shall always be deemed to have been added ). "for the purpose of this Section, the expressions of "amount awarded" and "amount claimed" include any other additional sum payable with accordance with the law providing for acquisition in consideration of the compulsory nature oi the acquisition. " in view of the said explanation, Court Fee became payable not only on the amount of compensation, but also on the solatium payable under, Section 23 (2 ). By a subsequent amendment, the word 'applicant' occurring at the end of Section 48 was replaced by the word 'appellant', with effect from 28. 5. 1998. ( 8 ) THE question whether Court fee is payable on statutory allowances, in particular solatium, came up again for consideration before a Division bench of this Court in RAMAIAH vs SPECIAL LAND acquisition OFFICER, The Division Bench held that the appellant in an appeal under Section 54 of LA Act, has to pay Court Fee on the amount claimed in the appeal which includes not only the additional market value claimed in the appeal but also statutory allowances, in particular, solatium payable under Section 23 (2) of the LA Act. ( 9 ) THE question again directly came up for consideration in SRI basaveshwar CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY vs SPECIAL LAO. The division Bench held that the '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 as per explanation under Section 48 and the amount calculated at the rate of Rs. The division Bench held that the '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 as per explanation under Section 48 and the amount calculated at the rate of Rs. 12% per annum for the period mentioned in Section 23 (1a) is awarded in addition to the market value in consideration of the compulsory nature of acquisition; and therefore the amount awarded under Section 23 (1a) is also covered by the explanation to Section Section 48 of CF Act and the appellant has to pay Court Fee even on the difference in amount awarded and claimed under Section 23 (1a ). ( 10 ) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant submitted that the decision in BASAVESHWAR CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY was not consistent with the decision of the Full Bench in JAWARILAL. He contended that additional amount payable under Section 23 (1 A) is in the nature of interest and does not become part of the 'amount awarded' or 'amount claimed' and therefore additional amount awarded under section 23 (1 A) should not be taken into account either for calculating 'amount awarded' or 'amount claimed'. His reasoning Is thus: But for the explanation to Section 48 of CF Act, the term 'amount awarded' or 'amount claimed' will refer only to the compensation payable under Section 23 (1) of LA Act, as held in JAWARILAL. The explanation to Section 48 of CF Act specifically included only the additional sum payable In accordance with the law providing for acquisition 'in consideration of the compulsory nature of acquisition' therefore, what could be included in view of the explanation is not all additional sums, but only such additional sum which is payable 'in consideration of the compulsory nature of acquisition' Section 23 (2) of LA Act specifically states that the amount payable under that sub-section is 'in consideration of the compulsory nature of the acquisition'. But, Section 23 (1 A) inserted by Central Act 68/1984 does not say that the amount payable under that sub-section is 'in consideration of the compulsory nature of the acquisition'. Therefore, only the amount payable under Section 23 (2), and not Section 23 (1a) of LA Act, is to be considered as part of 'amount awarded' and 'amount claimed'. But, Section 23 (1 A) inserted by Central Act 68/1984 does not say that the amount payable under that sub-section is 'in consideration of the compulsory nature of the acquisition'. Therefore, only the amount payable under Section 23 (2), and not Section 23 (1a) of LA Act, is to be considered as part of 'amount awarded' and 'amount claimed'. ( 11 ) WE have carefully considered the decision of the Full bench in JAWARILAL. The said decision is of no assistance for two reasons. The first is that the Explanation to Section 48 of CF Act was added by Karnataka Act 80/1976 (and always deemed to have been added) to undo the effect of the decision in JAWARILAL. The second Is that the decision in JAWARILAL was rendered prior to insertion of section 23 (1a) of LA Act. The concept of 'compensation' under section 23 of LA Act was altered by inclusion of Section 23 (1a) of la Act and therefore the question whether the amount payable under section 23 (1a) forms part of 'amount awarded' or 'amount claimed' cannot be decided with reference to any principle laid down in a decision rendered prior to the insertion of Section 23 (1a ). ( 12 ) THE additional amount payable under Section 23 (1a) of LA act is neither interest nor solatium. It is an additional compensation designed to compensate the owner of the land, for the rise in price during the pendency of the Land Acquisition proceedings. It is a measure to off set the effect of inflation and the continuous rise in the value of properties See STATE OF TAMIL NADU vs L. KRISHNAN. The additional amount under Section 23 (1a) is intended to remove the hardship caused to the affected parties on account of the pendency of acquisition proceedings for long periods which renders unrealistic, the scale of compensation offered to them. Therefore the amount payable under Section 23 (1a) is an additional compensation in regard to the acquisition and has to be reckoned as part of the 'amount awarded' and 'amount claimed' for purposes of Section 48 of CF Act. ( 13 ) THE term 'compensation' used in Section 48 of- CF Act is of ' a wider import than the term 'market value'. ( 13 ) THE term 'compensation' used in Section 48 of- CF Act is of ' a wider import than the term 'market value'. In INDORE development AUTHORITY vs TARAK SINGH the Supreme Court considered the question whether a beneficiary of acquisition is liable to pay Court Fees under Section 8 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 (as applicable to State of Madhya Pradesh which is similar to Section. 48 of Karnataka Court Fees Act) when challenging higher compensation determined by the reference Court. In that context the Supreme Court observed that the beneficiary was liable to pay court fee to the extent of which it seeks to avoid the higher compensation awarded by the reference Court. ( 14 ) THE assumption of the appellant that only the market value payable under the first clause of sub-section (1) of Section 23 is 'compensation' is without basis, 'compensation' includes not only the market value under first clause of Section 23 (1), but also damages awardable under second to sixth clauses of Section 23 (1) and the additional amount under Section 23 (1a ). Once it is held or accepted that the additional amount payable under Section 23 (1a) of LA Act is part of the compensation, inclusion of such amount for purposes of Court Fee is inescapable. Section 48 of CF Act, as noticed above, states that in a memorandum of appeal against an award relating to compensation under any Act for the acquisition of property for public purpose, fee shall be computed on the difference between the amount awarded and amount claimed by the appellant. The word 'amount claimed' refers to the amount which according to the appellant should be the compensation; and the words 'amount awarded' refers to the amount awarded by the reference Court. In an appeal by the beneficiary, the Court Fee will have to be paid on the difference between the amount which according to the Beneficiary is payable as compensation and the amount of compensation payable in terms of the award of the reference Court. ( 15 ) THE Court Fee under Section 48 of CF Act in an appeal by claimant is to be calculated on the amount claimed minus the amount awarded. On the other hand, in an appeal by beneficiary, Court Fee should be calculated on the amount awarded minus the amount claims (that is amount admitted ). ( 15 ) THE Court Fee under Section 48 of CF Act in an appeal by claimant is to be calculated on the amount claimed minus the amount awarded. On the other hand, in an appeal by beneficiary, Court Fee should be calculated on the amount awarded minus the amount claims (that is amount admitted ). The 'amount claimed' and 'amount awarded' are to be calculated as follows :- amount claimed : the amount which ought to have been fixed as compensation under Section 23 (1) that is the market value under para 1 of Section 23 (1) plus damages if any under Paras 2 to 6 of Section 23 (1) according to appellant + additional amount calculated under Section 23 (1 A ). + 30% of the amount which ought to have been fixed as market value according to the appellant amount Awarded : compensation Awarded by the Reference Court, under Section 23 (1) [that is the market value fixed under para (1) plus damages if any + additional amount calculated under Section 23 (1 A) + 30% of the market value fixed by the reference Court awarded under paras (2) to (6) of Section 23 (1)] ( 16 ) THIS may be clarified by the following illustrations:illustration-I facts: For a Land of one acre, the LAO determines the market value as Rs. 10,000/- and Reference Court increases it to rs. 1,00,000/ -. The period between date of 4 (1) Notification and date of award, is 24 months. I) In an appeal bv claimant: seeking enhancement of compensation to Rs. 1,50,000/-, the difference on which Court fee has to be paid is: