JUDGMENT :

T.S. Sivagnanam, J.

1. The appellant in all these appeals is the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI), represented by its Project Directors over the orders passed by the District Courts in the petitions filed by the respondents/land losers under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for brevity "the Arbitration Act") enhancing the compensation awarded by the competent authority/District Collectors under the National Highways Act, 1956 (for brevity "the NH Act") for the lands acquired from the land losers/respondents, for the purpose of widening of the existing National Highways.

2. The appeals have been filed under Sections 37(1) and 37(2) of the Arbitration Act. Though there may be slight factual difference with regard to the quantum of compensation claimed/awarded, since the larger question, a legal issue raised by the appellant being common in all these appeals, with the consent of either side, the appeals were clubbed together, heard and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

3. Only one of the land losers has filed a Cross Objection in Cross Objection (MD) No. 16 of 2015 in C.M.A. (MD) No. 386 of 2015 claiming further enhancement than what was granted to the land owners by the Principal District Court, Theni.

4. As observed earlier, the orders impugned in these appeals have been passed by the various Principal District Courts in the Southern Districts. There is difference in the factual matrix such as the extent of land acquired, quality and nature of land, veracity of the documents exhibited etc., yet the submissions made by the learned counsels on either side on the legal aspects are common. This has led to clubbing of these appeals.

5. By consent, C.M.A. (MD) No. 560 of 2018 is taken as the lead case. This appeal has been filed against the order passed by the Principal District and Sessions Court, Theni in Arbitration O.P. No. 9 of 2015 dated 22.03.2018. The respondent/land loser filed a petition under Section 34(2) of the Arbitration Act to set aside and modify the arbitral award dated 09.04.2015 passed by the District Collector/Arbitrator in Arbitration Case No. 35 of 2015 and for consequential direction to the appellant to pay the respondent a sum of Rs. 40,000/- per cent with 30% solatium, 12% additional amount, interest for the first one year at the rate of 9% per annum, i.e., from 11.11.2011 to 10.11.2012 and thereafter, with 15% interest from 11.11.2012 till the date of payment with costs. The District Court by its fair and decretal order, allowed the arbitration original petition, set aside the award of the Arbitrator, dated 09.04.2015 and held that the land loser is entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs. 9,00,509/-, including 30% solatium and interest at the rate of 12% under Section 23(1A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of taking possessing of the land, i.e., on 07.09.2012 up to one year and after the expiry of one year, the land loser be entitled for interest at the rate of 15% per annum till the deposit of the amount of compensation awarded.

6. The arguments on behalf of the appellant were advanced by Mr. Su. Srinivasan, learned Standing Counsel and Mr. C. Arulvadivel @ Sekar, learned Standing Counsels for NHAI. It is submitted that under the provisions of the Arbitration Act, Courts are not conferred with power to modify the award and this is a significant departure from the provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1940 and the scope of interference by the Court under the Arbitration Act, 1996 has been restricted. It is submitted that the scope of interference has been clearly set out in three of the provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1996, viz., Sections 9, 34 and 37. It is further submitted that the Court cannot sit as an appellate forum, re-evaluate or re-appreciate the evidence of the Arbitral Tribunal to come to a different conclusion and such re-appraisal is impermissible under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.