comparison between acquisition made under the Requisitioning and acquisition Act would be odious in view of the dissimilarities between the two enactments. That decision was followed in subsequent pronouncements of this Court in Union of India v. Chajju Ram2 where a similar attack was mounted against the constitutional validity of the Defence of India Act, 1971 but repelled by this Court relying upon the decision in Hari Krishan Khosla4. 10. What is noteworthy is that in both these matters this Court had made a distinction between cases in which there was inordinate delay in the appointment of an arbitrator and consequent delay in the determination of the amount of compensation payable to the owners and other case 4. 1993 Supp (2) SCC 149 4where there was no such delay. In para 79 of the judgment of this Court in Hari Krishan Khosla4, this Court observed: "79. This is a case in which for 16 years no arbitrator was appointed. We think it is just and proper to apply the principle laid