IMPORTANT POINTS
The appellants are entitled to get solatium and interest on solatium in terms similar to those contained in Sections 23(2) and 28 of the L A Act. Needless to say that such quantification and grant of solatium and interest in terms similar to those contained in Section 23(2) and Section 28 of the L A Act shall be effected expeditiously.

JUDGMENT :

Ravikumar, J

The captioned appeals are preferred by awardees of compensation for acquisition of land, in different extent, under the National Highways Act, 1956 (N H Act), for the purpose of widening of National Highway 47 from Mannuthy to Wadakkancherry. Since the same issues pose for resolution in all the appeals they were heard simultaneously and are being disposed of by this common judgment. Shorn of detail the basic facts in each of the cases are as follows:-

Arb.A.No.18 of 2018

It relates to the acquisition of 7.45 Ares of land comprised in Survey No.20/5 of Pananchery Village from the appellant herein. The Land Acquisition Officer passed an award granting land value of Rs.4,25,000/- per Are and Rs.19,40,042/- towards value of structures and Rs.55,000/- towards incidental expenses and shifting charges. The Arbitrator enhaced the compensation under each of the aforesaid heads viz., Rs.17,04,340/- additionally towards land value payable, an amount of Rs.8,61,794/- additionally towards value of structures and an amount of Rs.55,000/- additionally towards incidental and shifting charges. It is dissatisfied with the quantum of enhancement that the petitioner preferred an application before the District Court, Thrissur under Section 34(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for brevity 'Arbitration Act'). The District Court as per the order in OP(Arbitration)No.744/2013 dismissed the petition.

Arb.A.No.21 of 2018

It relates to the acquisition of 7.45 Ares of land comprised in Survey No.20/5 of Pananchery Village from the appellant herein. The Land Acquisition Officer passed an award granting land value of Rs.4,25,000/- per Are and Rs.15,36,187/- towards value of structures and Rs.55,000/- towards incidental expenses and shifting charges. The Arbitrator enhaced the compensation under the aforesaid heads viz., Rs.20,12,990/- additionally towards land value payable, an amount of Rs.6,98,045/- enhanced towards value of structures and an amount of Rs.55,000/- towards incidental and shifting charges. It is dissatisfied with the quantum of enhancement that the petitioner preferred an application before the District Court, Thrissur under Section 34(1) of the Arbitration Act. The District Court as per the order in OP(Arbitration)No.784/2013 dismissed the petition.

Arb.A.No.22 of 2018

It relates to the acquisition of 8.52 Ares of land comprised in Survey No.552/1, 3082/17 of Peechi Village from the appellant herein. The Land Acquisition Officer passed an award granting land value of Rs.4,25,000/- per Are and Rs.19,04.042/- towards value of structures and Rs.55,000/- towards incidental expenses and shifting charges. The Arbitrator enhaced the compensation under each of the aforesaid heads viz., Rs.25,52,484/- additionally towards land value payable, an amount of Rs.10,90,478/- additionally towards value of structures and an amount of Rs.55,000/- additionally towards incidental and shifting charges. It is dissatisfied with the rate of enhancement that the petitioner preferred an application before the District Court, Thrissur under Section 34(1) of the Arbitration Act. The District Court as per the order in OP(Arbitration)No.758/2013 dismissed the petition.

2. The appellants challenge the aforesaid orders in the respective OP(Arbitration) filed under Section 34(2) of the Arbitration Act raising various contentions. The contention is that the District Court went wrong in holding that in respect of acquisition effected under the N H Act, in a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, Award of the Arbitrator could be challenged only on any of the grounds specified under Section 34 (2) (a) (i) to (v) and (b) (i) and (ii) of the Arbitration Act. The District Court held that in the absence of any grounds envisaged under the aforesaid section of the Arbitration Act an Arbitral Award could not be interfered with. It is consequent to such conclusions and findings that the petitions filed by the appellants herein under Section