A court exercising powers under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, lacks the jurisdiction to modify an arbitral award or substitute its own findings on the merits of compensation; its role is strictly supervisory, limited to quashing an award and allowing for de novo proceedings if necessary.

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 37(1)(C) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER 29/11/2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPLE DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, RAMANAGARA IN ARBITRATION APPLICATION No.79/2023 TO THE EXTENT OF REMANDING THE MATTER TO THE DESIGNATED ARBITRATOR & ETC.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE

and

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)

1. The appellant has filed the present appeal under Section 37(1)(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [A&C Act] read with Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 impugning an order dated 29.11.2025 [impugned order] passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara [District Court] in Arbitration Application No.79/2023. The appellant had filed the said application under Section 34 of the A&C Act, praying that the award dated 04.07.2023 [impugned award] rendered by respondent No.3 [Arbitral Tribunal] be set aside. The appellant also sought that the compensation for the acquired lands be fixed at the rate of `32,340/- per sq. mtr. and the compensation be paid along with 12% additional compensation, solatium, interest, and other benefits as payable under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement, Act 2013 [hereafter 2013 Act].

2. The appellant owned lands measuring 631 sq. mtrs. comprised in Sy. No.42/1 and 50 sq. mtrs. comprised in Sy. No.92/2 of Mayaganahalli Village, Bidadi Hobli, Ramanagara Taluk and District. These lands [hereafter the subject lands] were the subject matter of acquisition for expansion and widening of Mysuru Bengaluru National Highway No.25. A preliminary notification under Section 3A of the National Highways Act, 1956 [NH Act], inter alia, with respect to the subject lands, was issued on 01.02.2016 and the final notification under Section 3D of the NH Act was issued on 23.09.2016.

3. Respondent No.1 – the Special Land Acquisition Officer and Competitive Authority [SLAO] – determined the compensation payable for 631 sq. mtrs. falling in Sy. No.42/1 at the rate of `7,833 per sq. mtr. and the lands falling in Sy. No.92/2 at the rate of `2,026/- per sq. mtr. The SLAO found that the lands in Sy. No.42/1 were converted residential lands, and the lands falling in Sy. No.92/2 was dry agricultural land. The compensation was determined on the basis of the guidance value of such lands. The appellant was dissatisfied with the compensation awarded and filed an application (claim for enhancement of compensation) under Section 3G(5) of the NH Act.

4. The Arbitral Tribunal passed an award dated 13.08.2019, enhancing the compensation to `15,400/- per sq. mtr. The appellant was dissatisfied with the said compensation and filed an application (A.S No.17/2019) before the learned District Court under Section 34 of the A&C Act seeking the setting aside of the Arbitral Tribunal’s award dated 13.08.2019. The learned District Court dismissed the said application by an order dated 26.02.2021.

5. The learned District Court's order dated 26.02.2021 was challenged in an appeal filed before this court (MFA No.2042/2021) under Section 37(1)(c) of the A&C Act. This court dismissed the said appeal by an order dated 26.07.2021. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed an appeal before the Supreme Court [Civil Appeal No.4671/2022 arising from SLP (C) No.19775/2021]. The said appeal was disposed of by an order dated 11.07.2022. The Supreme Court issued certain direct