Interest payable under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act is not part of the compensation for acquisition of land and, therefore, no court-fee is payable on such interest.

VEERASWAMI, C.J.:- The question referred to us by Sadasivam and Mudaliyar, JJ. is:-

"Whether an appellant should pay court-fee on the interest payable to him under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, and, if so, on what basis?"

The appellant whose land had been acquired compulsorily under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act was, on a reference under Section 18 of the Act, granted by the City Civil Court a sum of Rs.1570-62 as enhanced compensation with interest at 4 per cent. from 20-7-1959, the date on which the State had taken possession of the land. Sadasivam and Srinivasan, JJ. allowed the claimant's appeal and granted a further sum of Rs.1570-62 together with solatium at the prescribed percentage. Though in the memorandum of appeal the appellant had undertaken to pay court-fee on the interest over the further enhanced compensation that might be allowed, actually the learned Judges said nothing about interest while disposing of the appeal. The appellant, therefore, sought by a petition to get the decree amended so as to have the interest on such compensation included in the decree. When this petition came up before Sadasivam and Mudaliyar, JJ, they were not inclined to concur with the view of Krishnamurthi v. Revenue Divisional Officer, 83 Mad LW 505 : (AIR 1971 Mad 236), that as interest formed part of compensation for acquisition of land, an appellant was liable to pay court-fee on the amount payable to him as interest The learned Judges have, therefore, made this reference to a Fuller Bench. In doing so, they have opined that interest payable under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act is not part of the compensation awarded for compulsory acquisition of land and that as such Section 51 of the Madras Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955 would have no application. They have added that such interest is not paid for acquiring title to the property from the owner, but for compensating him for depriving his possession before payment of compensation.

2. Section 51 of the Madras Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act reads:-

"The fee payable under this Act on a Memorandum of appeal against an order relating to compensation under any act for the time, being in force for the acquisition of property for public purposes shall be computed on the difference between the amount awarded and the amount claimed by the appellant."

Section 4 is the charging section. It requires that no document which is chargeable with fee under the Act shall be filed, exhibited or recorded in, or be acted on or furnished, by, any court including the High Court, unless in respect of such document there be paid a fee of an amount not less than that indicated as chargeable under the Act. Section 21 provides how court-fee should be determined or computed in accordance with the provisions of Chapters IV, VI and VIII and Schedules I and II. A memorandum of appeal against an order relating to compensation under any Act for the time being in force for acquisition of property should be valued in accordance with Section 51. That means court-fee shall be charged on the difference between the amount awarded and the amount claimed by the appellant, and computed and paid as prescribed by Schedule I, Art.1. There is no dispute that the appeal before this court which was disposed of by Sadasivam and Srinivasan, JJ. was one within the purview of Section 51. But the point is whether interest payable on the enhanced compensation awarded in the appeal is part of the compensation itself. The word 'compensation' by itself may, de hors the context, be of wide import. In its ordinary significance, it means, to counter balance, make up for, make amends for. In that sense, compensation is an equivalent or something to make an equal return to or recompense for. Interest payable for use of money may, therefore, be compensation in the wider sense of the term. Inglewood Pulp and Paper Co. v. New Brunswick Electric Power Commission, 1928 AC 492 : (AIR 1928 PC 287), warr