The appellants are the petitioners in W.P (C) No.4947/2024. That writ petition was filed by the appellants/petitioners praying inter alia that an award of the Arbitrator under Section 3G of the National Highways Act, 1956 (In short 'the NH Act, 1956) should be set aside as certain crucial aspects which were statutorily required to be considered were not so considered by the Arbitrator.

2. It is the case of the learned counsel for the appellants that the acquisition of the portion of the building including the staircase and the lift room has resulted in a situation where the appellants will have to suffer substantial costs for relocating the said facilities which will also result in the usable area of the hotel coming down. It is her case that the damages so suffered by the appellants is also a matter that should have been taken into consideration by the Arbitrator while determining the compensation payable under the provisions of the NH Act, 1956. The appellants also have a case that they have not been paid any interest in terms of the provisions contained in the NH Act, 1956.

3. It is thus that the appellants were before this Court seeking to set aside the award of the Arbitrator and seeking a writ of Mandamus directing the Arbitrator to re-consider the matter taking note of Exts P5 and P6 reports and the provisions of the NH Act, 1956. The learned Single Judge on a consideration of the matter held as follows:-

“The contention of the petitioner is that while issuing Ext P7 order, the arbitrator did not look into Ext P5 and P6 valuation reports submitted by the Executive Engineer of the PWD. I am of the view that these are all matters which could be agitated by the petitioner by filing appropriate petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996. So as to facilitate the petitioner to initiate proceedings as per Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the interim order granted in the case on 12.02.2024 will continue for a period of two weeks from today. Reserving such right of the petitioner, the writ petition is disposed of.”

4. Sri. K.P. Satheesan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the National Highways Authority of India on the instructions of Adv. P. Mohandas would submit that the reliefs sought for in W.P (C) No.4947/2024 cannot be granted. It is submitted that the remedy of the appellants against the award of the Arbitrator under Section 3G of the NH Act, 1956 is to file an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before a competent court. It is submitted that it is clear from the decision of the Supreme Court in Sterling Industries v. Jayprakash Associates Ltd and others; AIR 2019 SC 3558, that a writ petition was not maintainable challenging the award of the Arbitrator under Section 3G of the NH Act, 1956. The learned Senior Counsel points out that the appellants have already received the compensation amount awarded by the Arbitrator. The learned Senior Counsel also pointed out that it is clear from Ext.R1 (a) that the appellants had already handed over the possession of the acquired property to the National Highway Authority.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants in reply would submit that where the award of the Arbitrator is not in consonance with the provisions of the NH Act, 1956, it is open to the appellants to challenge the award by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel would submit that this court by judgment in Ammankovil Narayanan v. District Collector, Kannur; 2023 (7) KHC 655 had set aside the award of the Arbitrator in a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel also placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Samudram S.V. v State of Karnataka and another; (2024) 3 SCC 623, to contend that the Court under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act does not have the power to modify the award and therefore the only