The court clarified that under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, the scope of review is limited to setting aside awards for patent illegality or public policy violations, not for modification.

JUDGMENT :

SUNITA AGARWAL, C.J.

1. The only issue raised in these appeals filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act’ 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 1996’), is to the propriety of the order of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Rajula passed under Section 34 of the Act’ 1996 while setting aside the Arbitral award holding that the Arbitrator had passed the award without considering the substantive laws and the evidence on record, the Court has proceeded to decide two issues pertaining to the claim of the applicant for additional compensation on merits by appreciation of evidence on record.

2. A perusal of the judgment and order dated 03.01.2022 passed under Section 34 of the Act, 1996 indicates that the Court framed nine issues as under:

“4. Following issues have been framed vide Exh. 22 for determination of present applications.

1. Whether applicants can point out that impugned order passed by the learned arbitrator case No. 118/2019, Dt. 04/06/2021 is erroneous, capricious and perverse and or is required to set aside on the ground of patent illegality?

2. Whether the applicants / appellants prove that, the disputed arbiter award is in conflict with the public policy of India?

3. Whether the applicants proves that he is entitled to get the additional claim as prayed in to the prayer Ex. 1 & 12 vide Para No. 4 as a additional award?

4. Whether the applicants appellants prove that the compensation given earlier was not adequate?

5. Whether the applicants / appellants proves that the higher market rate was applied in the award of another land owner for the same types of land in same area and rate for the agriculture land, industrial land and non- agriculture land's rate was different and higher than the present disputed land?

6. Whether the applicants / appellants prove that the compensation given for house / building and trees was not adequate and he is entitled to get additional compensation?

7. Whether the opponent / respondent proves that the award passed by the opponent No. 1 is fare, just, proper and decided judiciously?

8. Whether the opponent No. 1 to 3 proves that the objections raised in to the written statements are lawful and the claim petition is required to be disallowed?

9. What order & what decree?”

3. Out of these issues, the Issue No.3, as noted hereinabove, pertains to the additional claim made by the applicants with the prayers for making of an additional award. Other Issue Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 6, which have been answered in negative pertain to the plea of the applicant that the arbitral award passed under Section 3 (5) of the National Highways Act, 1956 is erroneous, perverse and suffers from patent illegality, and also is in conformity with the public policy. No appeal has been filed by the claimants / applicants. Further, Mr Maulik Nanavati, learned advocate appearing for the appellant does not challenge the findings on Issue Nos. 7 and 8 on the perversity in the Arbitral award as against the appellants.

4. The only challenge before us is to the findings returned on Issue Nos. 3 and 9, wherein the Court, Additional District Judge has proceeded to hold that the applicants were entitled to higher amount of compensation, treating that the acquired land, though, was agricultural in nature, but since the Government has acquired it for Non-agricultural purposes, the applicants are entitled for compensation at Non-agricultural rates.

5. Upon further perusal of the findings returned by the Court, it is evident that it has reached at a conclusion that the Arbitrator has simply agreed to the value of the land fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer to hold that the compensation granted by the Land Acquisition Officer is adequate and reasonable and does not deserve any enhancement. No attempt was made by the Arbitrator to make an independent assessment of the market value on the date of the Notification, taking into consideration all the relevant factors and evidences produced before him. The award