JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr.S.Senthil, learned counsel for the appellant and Dr.S.Suriya, learned Government Advocate for the respondents 1 and 2 and Mr.Richard Wilson, learned counsel for the third respondent.

2. This appeal has been filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, challenging the order dated 21.04.2017 passed by the Principal District Judge, Namakkal in Arbitration O.P.No.188/2013.

3. The appellant, unsatisfied with the determination of compensation awarded by the first respondent, dated 03.06.2008, filed an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before the learned Principal District Judge, Namakkal in AOP No.188 of 2013. The appellant has raised the following grounds:-

(a) Principles of natural justice have been violated by the first respondent while passing the impugned arbitral award.

(b) The first respondent has failed to consider the documents relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant while fixing the compensation under the impugned arbitral award,

(c) The Expert Committee Report relied upon by the first respondent, under the impugned award was not served on the appellant.

(d) The lands acquired from the appellant will fetch higher value, if the documents produced by the appellant were duly considered by the first respondent/arbitrator.

(e) The first respondent/arbitrator has failed to award 30% solatium and additional market value @12% from the date of 3A(1)modification to the date of possession and 15% interest for the enhanced compensation under the arbitral award as per the settled law.

4. The learned Principal District Judge, Namakkal, under the impugned order dated 21.04.2017 in AOP No.188 of 2013, dismissed the application filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, by the appellant, by rejecting the contentions raised by the appellant.

5. In the case of Project Director, National Highways No.45E and 220 National Highways Authority of India vs M.Hakeem and Another reported in 2021 SCC On line SC 473, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held recently that the Court, while exercising power under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, cannot modify an Arbitral Award even in land acquisition compensation cases under the National Highways Act. When the impugned order dated 21.04.2017 was passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Namakkal, in AOP No.188 of 2013, the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was not in place.

6. The appellant who has lost his lands due to the land acquisition under the National Highways Act, 1956, cannot be made to suffer loss due to improper determination of compensation amount. Such a person must be afforded opportunity to place all the relevant records/ documents to support his case for proper determination of compensation amount.

7. Admittedly, in the case on hand, the first respondent/Arbitrator has relied upon an Experts' Committee Report for determining the compensation amount payable to the appellant towards his lands acquired under the National Highways Act, 1956. However, admittedly, the said Expert Committee Report was not furnished to the appellant. No documentary evidence has been produced by the respondents either before the Court below exercising power under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 or before this Court exercising power under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to show that copy of the Expert Committee Report was furnished to the appellant.

8. The appellant has also contended that no sufficient opportunity was given to him to put forward his contentions before the first respondent/Arbitrator.

9. Since the determination of the compensation amount passed by the first respondent/Arbitrator is based upon the Expert Committee Report, submitted by the Revenue District Officer, Namakkal and since the said Report has not been furnished to the appellant, whose lands have been acquired, this Court is of the considere