JUDGMENT

Mohan, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals which are dealt with under a common judgment raise the only question of law as to whether Section 8(3)(a) of the Requisitioning and Acquisition oflmmovable Property Act, 1952 (Act 30 of 1952) (hereinafter referred to as the Act), is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

3. It is enough if the facts in Civil Appeal No. 1129 of 1975 are noted. It is preferred against the judgment of a Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Writ Application No. 608 of 1972 dated 30th of May, 1974 (the judgment has since been reported in AIR 1975 Punjab 74.

4. A large extent ofland in the Village of Malo Majra Tehsil, District Patiala was requsitioned by an order of the District Magistrate, Patiala, dated 17th March, 1967. The order of requisition was made under Section 29(1) of the Defence of India Act, 1962. The requisitioned land included 157 Bighas and 6 biswas belonging to Diwan Hari Krishan Khosla who died during the pendency of the proceedings in the High Court. His sons A vtar Krishan Khosla and Chand Khosla were impleaded as his legal representatives by an order dated 6th May, 1974. Later on, these lands were acquired by the Central Government under Section 7(1) of the. Act. The Competent Authority, Jullundur, determined the compensation at Rs. 1,62,109.37. An offer of payment was made to Hari Krishan Khosla who was called upon to communicate his acceptance. By his written reply dated 22nd July, 1971 he requested that the payment be made to him under protest. At the same time, he objected to the inadequacy of the amount awarded to him. He wanted an arbitrator to be appointed and claimed interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum. The Competent Authority refused to pay even the amount of compensation determined. Aggrieved by the said refusal, Hari Krishan Khosla filed a writ petition.

5. When the matter came up before the learned Single Judge he directed that it should be heard by a Division Bench. The Division Bench, however, directed that the case be placed before the Chief Justice to be heard by a larger Bench. This was how the writ petition came up for adjudication before the Full Bench.

6. The only point agitated before the Full Bench was as follows:

"No porvision had been made in Section 8 of the Act for payment of solatium at the rate of 15 per cent of the compensation amount to the land owner as is available under the provisions of Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. There is no provision under the Act for payment of interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum as is provided under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act. There is no justification in depriving the land owner of the amount of solatium and interest simply because the land has been acquired under the provisions of Section 7 of the Requisitioning and Acquisition ofImmovable Property Act, 1952. The provisions of Section 8(3) of the Act are discriminatory in, so far as, they deny the land owner of the amount of solatium and interest and thus these provisions of the Act offend against the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India."

7. The Full Bench, after referring to the case law, relied mainly on the decision of this Court in Nagpur Improvement Trust and Am. V. Vi thai Rao and Ors., AIR1973 SC 696, (1973)1 SCC500, [1973]3 SCR39 and upheld the contention that the said provision was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution for the following reasons:-

(1) The fact that the owner of the requisitioned property has been receiving compensation even if it be equivalent to the market rent, does not make any difference as the owner of a non-requisitioned property may indeed be getting even a higher rate of rent from a private tenant before his property is acquired.

(ii) There is nothing in the Act to suggest that the requisitioned property cannot be acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 since there is no prohibition to do so. The result is that the Act leaves it to