ORDER

1. Delay condoned.

2. Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel on both sides.

3. The only question is whether the respondents are entitled to the payment of solatium and interest under the provisions of the Requisition and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952. The controversy is no longer res integra. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in Union of India v. Hari Krishan Khosla [1993 Supp (2) SCC 149] had considered the entire controversy and had held that the respondents were not entitled to the payment of interest and solatium. The learned counsel for the respondents sought to place reliance upon a two-Judge Bench decision in Rao Narain Singh v. Union of India [(1993) 3 SCC 60]. In view of the decision in Hari Krishan Khosla case [1993 Supp (2) SCC 149] the ratio of Rao Narain Singh case [(1993) 3 SCC 60] is no longer good law.

4. The appeals are accordingly allowed. No costs.