Hon’ble Jayant Banerji, J.—By means of this writ petition, the petitioners seek to challenge the order dated 12.12.2017, passed by the Arbitrator/Commissioner, Kanpur Region, Kanpur under Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (The Act of 1996).

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1,2 and 5 and Sri Pranjal Mehrotra for respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

3. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that proceedings for acquisition on behalf of the Dedicated Freight Corridor Corporation of India (The Corporation) was undertaken, in pursuance of which, certain plots of land of the petitioners were acquired and an award by the Arbitrator was passed on 27.3.2015. Thereafter, an application dated 10.9.2015 under Section 33 of the Act of 1996 was filed on behalf of the Corporation, in which it was stated that in pursuance of the order of the Tribunal dated 23.9.2014, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar was directed to conduct the spot inspection and to submit a report before the Arbitrator, but since an erroneous report was submitted by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, it was not filed by the Corporation. However, the tenure holders filed the aforesaid report of Sub Divisional Magistrate alongwith their application dated 15.10.2014. In the reply filed by the Corporation, the Arbitrator was informed regarding erroneous report of the Sub Divisional Magistrate. It was stated that the award dated 27.3.2015 was passed without taking into account the objection of the Corporation and that the land in respect of plot No. 799, after re-demarcation was found to be in excess by only 1494 square meters and not 5061.2 square meters as stated in the award dated 27.3.2015. Stating that this was an computation error, the Corporation prayed for correction of the award dated 27.3.2015. This application of the Corporation was also accompanied by an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act supported with an affidavit. Alongwith the application under Section 33 of the Act of 1996, the Corporation also filed the revised spot inspection report dated 9.4.2015.

4. In response to the aforesaid application, the petitioners filed their objection on 22.3.2017 stating that the application under Section 33 of Act of 1996 was barred by limitation and that an application under Section 34 of Act of 1996 has been filed before the Court of District Judge and as such, the Arbitrator has no jurisdiction to decide the application filed by the Corporation. However, by means of an amended award dated 12.12.2017, the Arbitrator proceeded to allow the application under Section 33 of Act of 1996 filed by the Corporation.

5. A counter-affidavit has been filed today on behalf of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 (The Corporation). In the counter-affidavit, it has been stated that a false averment has been made in the writ petition in paragraph 6 that no reference under Section 34 of Act of 1996 has been filed by any of the parties before the District Judge. It is stated that a case numbered as Civil Application (Arbitration) Case No. 100/70/2015 has been filed by the petitioners which is still pending before the Court of District Judge, Kanpur Nagar. On account of a calculation mistake in the spot inspection report done on 29.9.2014, possession of 17761.2 square meters had been shown on Plot No. 799 as against the acquired area of 12700 square meters which is 5061.2 square meters more than the acquired area. Thereafter, a spot inspection was again done on 9.4.2015, in which it appeared that the affected area of plot No. 799 is 14194 square meters which is only 1494 square meters more than the acquired area. It has been stated that with regard to said extra area of 1494 square meters, the same had also been acquired and under an award dated 31.3.2016, the petitioners have already received compensation with regard to that extra area. In support of the amended award dated 12.12.2017 passed by the Arbitrator dec