of compensation within a reasonable time from the date of vesting must be read into the 1952 Act. In fact, such a long delay of 12 years even in offering compensation will attract arbitrariness which is prohibited by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The first respondent had an option of even seeking quashing of the acquisition on the ground of this 7arbitrariness which may have violated his rights under Article 300A of the Constitution of India. 10. Considering the huge delay involved in payment of compensation, the High Court has rightly granted solatium and interest in terms of the decisions of this Court. In fact, we are surprised to note that the appellants have dragged the first respondent to this Court. There is absolutely no merit in these appeals. As the first respondent has been paid compensation 7 years back, we are refraining from imposing costs. 11. Hence, the appeals are dismissed. ..........................J. (ABHAY S.OKA) ..........................J. (UJJAL