IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15443 of 2009 1. KAMLESHWAR PRASAD JAISAWAL @ KANCHAN PRASAD S/O LATE KAPILDEO PRASAD R/O MAIN ROAD, MOTIHARI TOWN P.S. TOWN DISTT.- MOTIHARI Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 1 3. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA 1 4. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, EAST CHAMPARAN, MOTIHARI ----------- 4. 29.11.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The writ petition seeks compensation of Rs. 10 lakhs for suffering physical and mental disfigurement in consequence of an act of indiscretion on part of police personnel on 17.7.1997. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly acknowledges that he has received the entire compensation of 7 Lakhs in two installments as ordered by the National Human Rights Commission on 1.4.2008. But the amount is insufficient and it should be enhanced. Learned counsel for the petitioner however very fairly acknowledges that he has not questioned the quantum of compensation as awarded by the NHRC till date and it had attained finality. It is further acknowledged that the benefit 2 of compensation given by the NHRC has also been enjoyed by the petitioner. The Supreme Court in AIR 1975 Supreme Court 1058 (Rani Inder Kumari v. State of Rajasthan) has held at Paragraph-10 as follows:- “10. The petitioners cannot be allowed to blow hot and cold in the same breath. Right to the compensation, of whatever nature or content, flowed from the abolition of the cash jagirs under the Act. Acceptance of the compensation under the Act for the full length of the period of twelve years completely negatives the scope of attack upon the abolition of the grant. The foundation of the compensation is the abolition of the cash jagirs. Section 3(2) under which the compensation is available is integrally connected with Section 3(1) which has abolished the cash jagirs from a specified date and it is only on such abolition that compensation is rendered possible. Acceptance of compensation, therefore, gives a quietus to the claim to have the Act adjudged as ultra vires. The petitioners cannot et a cake and have it. At any rate the petitioners have approached the court after inordinate delay and even then after enjoying the full benefit under the Act. The petitions, therefore, cannot be entertained.” The petitioner cannot have the benefit of the order of the NHRC, enjoyed the compensation paid thereunder and still virtually challenge the order of the NHRC to seek enhancement of the compensation. He virtually challenges that order by 3 which the compensation has been granted while seeking to retain the benefit of the order. The writ petition is dismissed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)