judgment, the first respondent has received the entire compensation amount about 7 years 1. decided on 11th February, 1985 in Civil Appeal No.470-471 of 1985 2. (2003) 5 SCC 568 3. (2010) 14 SCC 357 3back. 6. It will be useful to refer to paragraphs 9 and 10 of the decision of this Court in the case of Dilawar Singh3 which reads thus: "9. It is common ground that the provisions of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 do not make any provision for the grant of solatium or interest to the expropriated landowners. The absence of any such provision in the said act was in fact made a basis for a challenge to the constitutional validity of the enactment which was repelled by this Court in Union of India v. Hari Krishan Khosla4. This Court pointed out that any 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