The Court can partially set aside an arbitral Award and has limited scope of interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Court cannot modify an Award but can set it aside partly, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard. Admit. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the rival parties.

2. By this appeal, National Highways Authority of India and the Government of India, through the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways(appellants) have challenged judgment and order dated 21/12/2020, passed by the Court of Principal District Judge, Nagpur (PDJ) in arbitration application filed by the appellants under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act of 1996). By the said judgment and order, the PDJ has partly allowed the application and set aside Award passed by the Arbitrator, only to the extent of granting additional 10% amount on total compensation to the contesting respondent Nos.3 to 8 for loss of easementary rights, as per Section 3-G(2) of the National Highways Act, 1956 (Act of 1956).

3. The appellants undertook the process of acquisition of lands of respondent Nos.3 to 8 through the respondent No.2 - Land Acquisition Collector and Competent Authority, under the provisions of the Act of 1956, pertaining to the land located in village Ketapar, Tah. Kalmeshwar, Dist. Nagpur. The said land was acquired for Saoner- Dhapewada-Kalmeshwar-Gondkhairi section of National Highway No.7. Pursuant to the proceedings of acquisition undertaken by the respondent No.2 under the provisions of said Act, on 31/03/2018, the said respondent pronounced Award/Order, offering compensation to respondent Nos.3 to 8. Aggrieved by the same, the said respondents invoked Section 3-G(5) of the said Act, as a consequence of which, arbitration proceeding was initiated before the respondent No.1 - Additional Commissioner/Arbitrator.

4. The respondent Nos.3 to 8 raised various grounds in their application seeking enhancement of compensation. They relied upon the ready reckoner concerning the said lands and also asserted that the land had non-agricultural potential, being located adjacent to the highway. The respondent Nos.3 to 8 also referred to relevant guidelines pertaining to the ready reckoner and stated the basis for their claims towards enhanced compensation. The appellants opposed the claims of respondent Nos.3 to 8 before the Arbitrator.

5. The respondent No.1 Additional Commissioner/ Arbitrator considered the material placed on record by the rival parties and by Award/Order dated 30/11/2019, partly allowed the application of the claimants i.e. respondent Nos.3 to 8. The operative portion of the Award/Order of the Arbitrator reads as follows: -

“Order

i. The application is partly allowed.

ii. The non-applicants are directed to pay to the applicants an amount of Rs.2630/- per Sq. Mt. for the acquired lands of 0.4530 H.R., 0.0720 H.R. & 0.0870 H.R. i.e. total 0.6120 H.R., i.e. 6120 Sq.Mtrs which comes to Rs.1,60,95,600/-.

iii. The non-applicants are directed to pay 100% solatium to the applicants on the amount of total compensation, less the amount already granted/received by the applicants towards land component.

iv. The non-applicants are also directed to pay to the applicants an additional amount of 10% of the total compensation amount for the loss of easement rights as per section 3-G(2) of the National Highways Act, 1956, if not already paid.

v. The non-applicants are further directed to pay the applicants an interest @9%p.a. on the enhanced compensation w.e.f. the date of notification under section 3-D of the said Act till the date of payment of the enhanced compensation.

vi. The non-applicants are directed to pay to the applicants additional component @12% per annum of the enhanced component as per the RFCTLARR Act, 2013.

vii. Order may be communicated to all the parties concerned.”

6. Aggrieved by the said Award/Order passed by the respondent No.1 - Additional Commissioner/Arbitrator, the appellants filed application invoking Section 34 of the Act of 1996. Various grounds of challenge were raised, claiming that the Award deserved to be set aside on the parameters specified in Section 34 of the Act of 1996. The responden