JUDGMENT :

K.Kumaresh Babu, J.

The present appeal has been filed challenging the order passed in the Arbitration OP.106/2008 dated 24.08.2023

2. Heard, Ms.S.R.Sumathy, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Ms.R.Anitha, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the 1^st and 2^nd respondents and Mr.S.Karthikei Balan, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 3 to 6.

3. Ms.S.R.Sumathy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that for the purpose of widening NH-4, the lands in Nombal Village were sought to be acquired under the Provisions of National Highways Act, 1956. She would submit that an extent of 1278 Sq.meters of land in different survey numbers were originally owned by one Ramachandran, whose legal heirs are respondents 3 to 6. By a notification of the first respondent, compensation was also determined at Rs.365.44 per Sq. Meters in award dated 30.06.2004 and Rs.690 per sq. Meter in Award dated 16.05.2006.

4. The Original, land owner had preferred an Arbitration Petition and the second respondent by its proceedings dated 19.04.2008 had confirmed the Award made by the first respondent dated 30.06.2004 and 16.05.2006. Being aggrieved against the Award of the Arbitrator, the land owner had initiated an Arbitration Original Petition before the Principal District Judge, Thiruvallur in Arb.O.P.No.106 of 2008. She would contend that the Court without considering the merits of the case had allowed the Original Petition thereby setting aside the arbitral Award.

5. She would submit that the order impugned in this Appeal is contrary to the various judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court wherein it had been categorically held that the Court should not ordinarily interfere with the Award of the Arbitrator in any manner by modifying, enhancing or revising the order and that such arbitral Awards can only be set aside on restricted grounds such as being vitiated by patent illegality and opposed to public policy. She would submit that the Court below after holding that the Court do not have powers to modify the Award had set aside the Award leaving the entire issue in a limbo.

6. The Arbitration Original Petition had been filed by the land owners seeking enhancement of the compensation together with damages for loss of rental income and solatium, the Arbitration Original Petition was allowed and the Award of the arbitrator was set aside. According to her, such allowing of O.P. would only tantamount to granting of reliefs prayed for by the owner without adverting to the merits of such claim.

7. She would vehemently contend that it had been time and again held, that the Court exercising its power under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act cannot modify or revise the Award except to find that there is any perversity, vitiated by patent illegality and opposed to public policy which are the grounds available under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. She would submit that the Court below beyond the scope of Section 34 had allowed the O.P. filed by the land owners. She would submit that the respondents 3 to 6 pending the Arbitration O.P. had again made a representation seeking to arbitrate the disputes over the Award that was made and on the said representations, the second respondent had passed an arbitral Award in January 2020 enhancing the compensation payable. She would submit that for the very same Award which was originally comfirmed by the Arbitrator a fresh arbitral Award had came to be passed, contradicting the earlier Award which would amount to rearbitrating an issue which had already been settled which have been held to be bad.

8. Referring to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Tantia Construction Limited, she would submit that there cannot be two arbitration proceedings with regard to the same contract/ transaction and the subsequent arbitral Award passed by the second respondent had been challenged by the Appellant in a separate arbitration O.Ps which are also pen