JUDGMENT :

A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.

These arbitration appeals filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, ‘the Act of 1996’) can be conveniently decided together since they relate to acquisition of lands by the National Highways Authority of India under the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956 (for short, ‘the Act of 1956’). The appellants herein would be referred to as the ‘land owners’ while the acquiring body would be referred to as ‘the National Highways Authority’.

2. Various pieces of land situated at Mouza Gawsi Manapur, Mouza Parsodi and Mouza Jamtha were the subject matter of acquisition under the provisions of the Act of 1956. The notification under Section 3A of the Act of 1956 came to be issued on 21.06.2010. These lands were sought to be acquired for the purposes of widening, maintenance and operation of a portion of National Highway No.7. The Special Land Acquisition Officer (General), Nagpur was appointed as the ‘Competent Authority’ and he passed an award on 23.12.2011 awarding compensation for the acquired lands. The land owners not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation as awarded initiated proceedings under Section 3-G(5) of the Act of 1956. The Additional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur was appointed as Arbitrator for conducting arbitration proceedings in terms of Section 3-G(5) of the Act of 1956. Pursuant thereto each land owner filed statement of claim alongwith various documents in support of the prayer for enhancement in the amount of compensation. The National Highways Authority opposed each claim application and filed replies to the same. The Arbitrator thereafter passed his award in the case of each land owner and partly enhanced the amount of compensation principally by relying upon sale instance dated 09.07.2009 pertaining to a piece of land at Mouza Jamtha and report of the Government Approved Valuer dated 31.03.2010. The National Highways Authority being aggrieved by the enhancement granted by the Arbitrator approached the District Court, Nagpur by filing proceedings under Section 34 of the Act of 1996. These proceedings were contested by the land owners and the learned Principal District Judge-‘hereinafter referred to as the learned Judge’, by passing separate judgment in the case of each land owner set aside the award passed by the Arbitrator by holding that the Arbitrator had taken into consideration photo-copies of the sale-deed dated 09.07.2009 and the report of the Government Approved Valuer without he being examined. He found that there were errors on the face of the record and as the mandatory procedure prescribed under the Act of 1996 had not been followed, conduct of the Arbitrator amounted to misconduct within the purview of Section 34 of the Act of 1996. On these counts, the applications preferred by the National Highways Authority under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 came to be allowed. The said adjudication has given rise to these appeals under Section 37 of the Act of 1996.

3. Shri A.S. Jaiswal, learned Senior Advocate for the land owners in Arbitration Appeal Nos.4, 5 and 6 of 2016 submitted that the learned Judge committed an error in setting aside the award passed by the Arbitrator. The learned Judge exercised jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 by treating the proceedings as an appeal. The grounds that weighed with the learned Judge for setting aside the award could not amount either to an error apparent on the face of the record or misconduct on the part of the Arbitrator while passing the award. Referring to the order passed by the learned Judge it was submitted that the grounds that weighed with the learned Judge were that no certified copies of the sale instances were placed on record, the Government Approved Valuer whose report was taken into consideration had not been examined, the Arbitrator passed the award by applying his personal knowledge in the absence of any material pleadings in the statement of cla