JUDGMENT :

R.F. NARIMAN, J.

1. Applications for substitution are allowed. Leave granted.

2. The appeals in the present case raise an interesting question of law - as to whether the power of a court under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [“Arbitration Act”] to “set aside” an award of an arbitrator would include the power to modify such an award. A Division Bench of the Madras High Court has disposed of a large number of appeals filed under Section 37 of the said Act laying down as a matter of law that, at least insofar as arbitral awards made under the National Highways Act, 1956 [“National Highways Act”] Section 34 of the Arbitration Act must be so read as to permit modification of an arbitral award made under the National Highways Act so as to enhance compensation awarded by a learned Arbitrator.

3. The facts in all these appeals concern notifications issued under the provisions of the National Highways Act and awards passed thereunder. These notifications are all of the years 2009 onwards and consist of awards that have been made by the competent authority under the Act, who is a Special District Revenue Officer. In all these cases, awards were made based on the ‘guideline value’ of the lands in question and not on the basis of sale deeds of similar lands. The result is, in all these cases, that abysmally low amounts were granted by the competent authority. As an example, in SLP (Civil) No. 13020 of 2020, amounts ranging from Rs. 46.55 to 83.15 per square meter were awarded. In the arbitral award made by the District Collector in all these cases, being an appointee of the Government, no infirmity was found in the aforesaid award, as a result of which the same amount of compensation was given to all the claimants. In Section 34 petitions that were filed before the District and Sessions Judge, these amounts were enhanced to Rs. 645 per square meter and the award of the Collector was therefore modified by the District Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 34 Arbitration Act to reflect these figures. In the appeal filed to the Division Bench, the aforesaid modification was upheld, with there being a remand order to fix compensation for certain trees and crops.

4. Shri Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General of India, has taken us through the scheme of the National Highways Act, and has argued that since it was necessary to speed up the acquisition process for a very important public purpose, that is construction of national highways, the National Highways Act was amended in 1997 by the National Highway Laws (Amendment) Act, 1997 [“NH Amendment Act”], to include Sections 3 to 3J under which, notifications were issued under Sections 3A to 3D. Before vesting takes place of the land acquired under Section 3E, compensation is determined under Section 3G of the Act, which is an amount determined by the competent authority who is set up under Section 3(a) of the Act. Unlike the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 [“Land Acquisition Act”] if the amount determined by the competent authority is not acceptable to either the National Highways Authority of India [“NHAI”] or the land-owner, on application by either of the parties, the amount of compensation will be determined by an arbitrator who is appointed only by the Central Government. Then, subject to the provisions of the National Highways Act, the provisions of the Arbitration Act apply. The competent authority and the arbitrator, while determining the amount of compensation, must take into account, under Section 3G(7), the market value of the land on the date of publication of the notification under Section 3A, damage sustained and various other factors mentioned in the sub-section. Importantly, under Section 3J, the Land Acquisition Act does not apply to such acquisitions. The learned Solicitor General argued that, given the object sought to be achieved by the Act, a speedy procedure was provided by which a challenge to the arbitrator’s award is then made only un