A provision that discriminates between owners of requisitioned land, enabling the Government to choose whether to acquire the land under the Act or the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, resulting in owners whose land is acquired under the Act being deprived of the solatium and interest that they would have been entitled to if their land had been acquired under the 1894 Act, violates Article 14 of the Constitution.

R.S.NARULA, J.

1. The following question has been referred to this Full Bench in the circumstances hereinafter detailed :-

"Whether the provisions of Section 8 of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952, insofar as those provisions deny 15 per cent by way of solatium on the compensation awarded and also deny interest at the rate of 6 per cent, are violative of the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution."

Late Dewan Hari Krishan Khosla had one-third share in the Hindu undivided family property in village Malo Majra, tahsil and district Patiala. The large tract of land which was requisitioned by the order of the District Magistrate, Patiala, dated March 17, 1967 (Annexure A ), under sub-section (1) of Section 29 of the Defence of India Act, 1962, included 167 Bighas and 6 Biswas of land of Dewan Hari Krishan Khosla. 157 Bighas and 4 Biswas out of that land was later acquired by the Central Government under sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act (30 of 1952) (hereinafter called the Act) by publication of a notice to that effect in the Punjab Government Official Gazette, dated August 29, 1969 (Annexure B ). The compensation payable to Hari Krishan Khosla for the acquired land was determined by the order of the Special Land Acquisition Collector-cum-Competent Authority, Jullundur (Annexure C ), to be Rs. 1,62,109.37 P., and an offer of payment of the same was made to Hari Krishan Khosla. He was asked to communicate his acceptance or otherwise of the abovesaid offer. In his written reply, dated July 22, 1971 (Annexure D ), Hari Krishan Khosla requested that the amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector may be paid to him under protest. At the same time he objected to the inadequacy of the amount awarded to him, and applied to the Government for the appointment of an arbitrator and claimed interest at the rate of six per cent per annum. Annexure E to the writ petition is a copy of his application for the appointment of an arbitrator containing objections against the award, dated April 24, 1971. The competent authority under the Act refused to pay even the amount of compensation determined by the Land Acquisition Collector on the plea that the claimant had submitted objections for enhancement of the compensation. Not having received any redress at the Government s hands, Hari Krishan Khosla filed this writ petition.

2. A learned Single Judge of this Court (P. C. Jain, J.) before whom the petition came up for hearing framed the abovequoted question and directed that a larger Bench should hear the case. A Division Bench of this Court (Sandhawalia and Jain, JJ.) before whom the petition was listed for hearing passed order, dated August 16, 1973, directing the case to be placed before the learned Chief Justice for constituting a still larger Bench to hear it. In the meantime Dewan Hari Krishan Khosla died. Two of his sons, namely Avtar Krishan Khosla and Chand Krishan Khosla submitted an application to this Court praying for their names being substituted in place of the name of their father as petitioners in the case, on the ground that the share of Hari Krishan Khosla in the amount of compensation had devolved Upon the present claimants according to the will of the deceased. That application was allowed by our order, dated May 6, 1874, to the extent of directing the names of Avtar Krishan Khosla and Chand Krishan Khosla being substituted for the name of their deceased father.

3. The constitutionality of Section 8 (3) (a) of the Act has been questioned on the solitary ground that it violates the guarantee of equal protection of laws under Article 14 of the Constitution, inasmuch as the acquisition of petitioner s land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the 1894 Act) would have entitled them to obtain from the respondents at least 15 per cent more on the amount of compensation awarded to them (awarded to their