THE PROJECT DIRECTOR vs NOUSHAD K.M
- Court
- Kerala High Court
CNR : KLHC010068912026
2026:KER:71546
ARB.A NOS. 4, 3 & 6 OF 2026
-1-
CR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SOUMEN SEN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
TH
THURSDAY, THE 17 DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 / 26TH BHADRA,
1948
ARB.A NO. 3 OF 2026
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 17.10.2025 IN OP NO.69 OF
2025 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS & MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL/RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, KASARAGOD
APPELLANT/PETITIONER
THE PROJECT DIRECTOR
NHAI, PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION UNIT- KANNUR,
ZAHIRA, NEAR DINESH AUDITORIUM P.O, CIVIL
STATION, KANNUR, PIN - 670002
BY ADV SHRI.LEJO JOSEPH GEORGE
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS
1 NOUSHAD K.M
CNR : KLHC010068912026
2026:KER:71546
ARB.A NOS. 4, 3 & 6 OF 2026
-2-
KUNJIKANDATHIL HOUSE, K.K. VILLA AMALAVADIYAM
ROAD, PERAMANGALAM POST THRISSUR DISTRICT,
PIN – 680545
2 THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LA-NH)
COMPETENT AUTHORITY FOR LAND ACQUISITION (CALA)
KASARAGOD, PIN - 671541
BY ADVS.
SHRI.SAIBY JOSE KIDANGOOR
SHRI.BENNY ANTONY PAREL
SMT.PRAMITHA AUGUSTINE
SMT.AFSANA KHAN
SHRI.SREERAJ S. RAJARAM
SHRI.ADARSH PADMANABHAN
SHRI.AMAL DILEEP
SMT.ANNA PAUL
SHRI.VICTOR JOSEPH
THIS ARBITRATION APPEALS HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 17.09.2026, ALONG WITH Arb.A.4/2026 AND CONNECTED CASES,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CNR : KLHC010068912026
2026:KER:71546
ARB.A NOS. 4, 3 & 6 OF 2026
-3-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SOUMEN SEN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
TH
THURSDAY, THE 17 DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 / 26TH BHADRA,
1948
ARB.A NO. 4 OF 2026
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 29.11.2025 IN OP NO.46 OF
2025 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT - III,
KASARAGOD / III ADDITIONAL MACT, KASARAGODE
APPELLANT
PROJECT DIRECTOR
NATAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA PROJECT
IMPLEMENTATION UNIT, KANNUR, PIN - 670001
BY ADV SHRI.LEJO JOSEPH GEORGE
SRI.BIDAN CHANDRAN
RESPONDENT/S:
1 M.T. ABDUL BASHEER
S/O M.T. ABDUL RAHIMAN HAJI BEVINJA, THAKKI FERRY
KASARAGOD DISTRICT –, PIN - 671541
2 THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR(LA-NH)& CALA
NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA, KASARGODE,
CNR : KLHC010068912026
2026:KER:71546
ARB.A NOS. 4, 3 & 6 OF 2026
-4-
PIN - 671121
BY ADVS.
SHRI.P.SATHISAN
SHRI.SHIBU B.S
SHRI.ALVIN JEWEL S.S.
SMT.VIDHYA T.U.
SHRI.RAZAK M.
SHRI.SREEKARTHIK S. MENON
THIS ARBITRATION APPEALS HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 17.09.2026, ALONG WITH Arb.A.3/2026, 6/2026, THE COURT
ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CNR : KLHC010068912026
2026:KER:71546
ARB.A NOS. 4, 3 & 6 OF 2026
-5-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SOUMEN SEN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
TH
THURSDAY, THE 17 DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 / 26TH BHADRA,
1948
ARB.A NO. 6 OF 2026
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 21.08.2025 IN OP NO.67 OF
2025 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS & MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL/RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, KASARAGOD
APPELLANT
THE PROJECT DIRECTOR
NHAI, PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION UNIT-KANNUR, ZAHIRA,
NEAR DINESH AUDITORIUM, P.O CIVIL STATION,
KANNUR, PIN - 670002
BY ADV SHRI.LEJO JOSEPH GEORGE
SRI.BIDAN CHANDRAN
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT NO.1 AND 2
1 ABDUL KHADER HAJI
FATIMA MANZIL, HANAFI BAZAR, UPPALA, MANJESHWAR
CNR : KLHC010068912026
2026:KER:71546
ARB.A NOS. 4, 3 & 6 OF 2026
-6-
TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PIN - 671323
2 THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LA-NH)
AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY FOR LAND ACQUISITION,
KASARGOD, PIN - 682031
BY ADVS.
SHRI.P.SATHISAN
SHRI.SHIBU B.S
SHRI.RAZAK M.
SHRI.ALVIN JEWEL S.S.
SMT.VIDHYA T.U.
SHRI.SREEKARTHIK S. MENON
SHRI.DANIEL A.J.
THIS ARBITRATION APPEALS HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 17.09.2026, ALONG WITH Arb.A.4/2026 AND CONNECTED CASES,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CNR : KLHC010068912026
2026:KER:71546
ARB.A NOS. 4, 3 & 6 OF 2026
-7-
JUDGMENT
th
Dated this the 17 day of September 2026
SOUMEN SEN, C.J.
Heard Mr. Bidan Chandran and Mr. Lejo Joseph
George, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. P. Sathisan,
learned counsel for respondent No.1 in Arb. A. Nos. 4 & 6 of
2026 and Mr. Saiby Jose Kidangoor, learned counsel for the
respondent in Arb. A. No. 3 of 2026.
2. The three appeals involving the similar questions
of law and facts are heard together and disposed of by this
common judgment. However, for the purpose of convenience,
Arb. Appeal No. 3 of 2026 shall be considered to be the lead
matter. The grounds of challenge in the remaining two
appeals are same and similar to Arb. Appeal No. 3 of 2026.
Briefly stated, the respondents filed a petition under Section
3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956, challenging the
compensation awarded by the Special Deputy Collector (LA-
CNR : KLHC010068912026
2026:KER:71546
ARB.A NOS. 4, 3 & 6 OF 2026
-8-
NH) & Competent Authority for Land Acquisition (CALA), in
LAC 270/Kasaragod, consequent on the acquisition of land
for development of National Highway 66 in Kasaragod district.
The Court of Arbitrator and the District Collector, Kasaragod,
after hearing the parties and on the basis of the materials
available on record, partially affirmed the order of the Special
Deputy Collector LA(NH) & CALA. The issue raised before the
District Collector was violation of the structures and the
compensation payable on the entire building, although there
has been partial appreciation. When the matter was heard,
the parties decided to obtain a detailed report from the
Executive Engineer, PWD (Buildings), Kasaragod, and
accordingly, the Executive Engineer, PWD was directed to
submit a detailed report addressing the present condition of
the building in view of the contention raised by the
respondent that the utility of the building was reduced due to
acquisition. The report submitted revealed that the existing
three accesses to the building are to be demolished as part of
CNR : KLHC010068912026
2026:KER:71546
ARB.A NOS. 4, 3 & 6 OF 2026
-9-
National Highway widening and the present access from the
National Highway would be broken.
2. The Project Director, NHAI objected to the said
report stating that the construction activities are carried out
at sufficient offset from building and no structural component
of building was acquired and therefore, building is safe as
earlier and ground floor access will remain unaffected same
as present access from cross road and suitable staircase can
be constructed on cross road side for accessing first floor of
building. Thereafter, further inspection had taken place and a
report was submitted from where it appeared that the access
to the building has been badly affected due to acquisition.
This report of the Executive Engineer, PWD regarding the
access to the building was taken into consideration by the
Collector in partially allowing the claim of the respondent
with regard to the payment of compensation and the relevant
observations of the Arbitrator & District Collector, kasaragod,
in this regard are stated as under:
CNR : KLHC010068912026
2026:KER:71546
ARB.A NOS. 4, 3 & 6 OF 2026
-10-
“From the above, it is found that partial
acquisition and demolition will render the
entire building useless. Hence the petitioner is
eligible to get compensation for the entire
building. Under the above circumstances it is
ordered that the petitioner will be granted
compensation for the entire building.
Respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 herein
will take urgent necessary steps to value the
building after complying usual formalities and
disburse the compensation as per existing
statute.
Under the above circumstances I find
reason to interfere in certain areas of the
award passed by the Respondent No.2
(CALA).
In the result the Arbitration petition is
disposed of by allowing it partially as above
without cost.”
3. Being aggrieved by the said award, an application
was filed before the court of the District Judge, Kasaragod,
under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,
CNR : KLHC010068912026
2026:KER:71546
ARB.A NOS. 4, 3 & 6 OF 2026
-11-
1996, for setting aside the said award. In the said
application, it was inter alia alleged that if the court is
otherwise of the opinion that the remaining building is not
usable and the first respondent is entitled to get only the
exact value of damage of the structure, solatium is payable
for the said value. The award holder however submitted that
when a land is acquired and compensation is fixed under the
National Highways Act, Solatium is a part and parcel of the
compensation in view of Section 30 of the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, and therefore, the
owner is entitled to get 100% of the value of the remaining
building structure as solatium in view of Section 30 of the
said Act. It was further argued that the land includes things
which are attached to the land, in view of Section 3(p) of “the
Act 2013” and therefore, when a land along with building is
acquired and a portion of building is severed on account of
compulsory acquisition and when the severed portion is
CNR : KLHC010068912026
2026:KER:71546
ARB.A NOS. 4, 3 & 6 OF 2026
-12-
found to be not useful, such owner is entitled to get full value
of the entire building irrespective of the fact that the portion
of the severed building is situated in the remaining portion of
land of the owner which is not acquired. On consideration of
the said submissions and after going through the original
award, the learned District Judge upheld the award.
4. The learned District Judge had considered that
the original computation has been varied and modified by the
st
Collector holding that the 1 respondent owner would be
entitled to get compensation for the remaining portion of the
building which was severed on account of the acquisition,
following the definition of the land and the determination of
the amount of compensation mentioned in Section 27 read
with Section 30 of the Act, 2013.
5. In affirming the view of the Collector that solatium
would be payable even if it is a remaining building structure,
reference was made to the relevant provisions of the said Act,
and on consideration of the entire matter in paragraph 10 of
CNR : KLHC010068912026
2026:KER:71546
ARB.A NOS. 4, 3 & 6 OF 2026
-13-
the impugned judgment, the learned District Judge has
justified solatium, which reads as follows:
“ 10. As far as the question of awarding
Solatium is concerned, it is important to note
that the "remaining building structure",
available in the respondent's land is a part
and parsel of the part of the building which
was acquired along with 122 square metres of
land. It is also to be noted that as per the
findings arrived at by the learned Arbitrator as
per the impugned award on the basis of report
submitted by PWD, the remaining building
structure available in the respondent's land is
found to be unusable on account of its lack of
strength and all, and therefore, according to
me, the land owner cannot be compelled to
stay inside of unsafe building or utilise the
same in future and therefore, I am of the view
that the remaining building structure shall also
be considered to have been or acquired along
with 122 square metre of land for the purpose
of awarding compensation. Furthermore, the
word 'land' is defined u/s.3(D) of the NH Act
CNR : KLHC010068912026
2026:KER:71546
ARB.A NOS. 4, 3 & 6 OF 2026
-14-
and also u/s 3 (p) of "the Act 2013" and on
going by the said definitions, it can be seen
that the land includes buildings attached to
the land and therefore, I have no hesitation to
hold that when the remaining structure of the
building is found to be unsafe and not useful,
the said structure shall also be deemed to
have been acquired as per law for the purpose
of awarding compensation and therefore, the
first respondent is entitled to compensation for
the remaining structure including Solatium in
view of Section 30 of the Act. I order
accordingly.”
6. The learned District Judge in arriving at the said
conclusion has referred to the definition of the ‘land’ in
Section 3(D) of the NH Act and Section 3(p) of the Act 2013,
and categorically held that when the remaining structure of
the building is found to be unsafe and not useful, the said
structure shall also be deemed to have been acquired as per
law for the purpose of awarding compensation and therefore,
CNR : KLHC010068912026
2026:KER:71546
ARB.A NOS. 4, 3 & 6 OF 2026
-15-
the first respondent is entitled to compensation for the
remaining structure including solatium in view of Section 30
of the Act.
7. The learned counsel in assailing the said judgment
has reiterated the arguments made on behalf of NHAI before
the Collector as well as before the learned District Judge and
has submitted that the Arbitrator as well as the learned court
has failed to distinguish that solatium cannot be made for a
structure which has not been acquired by the NHAI for the
purpose of widening of the road. The learned counsel has
relied upon a decision of the coordinate Bench in Asiamma
1
and others v. The Chief Engineer (LA) and Others and
submits that this issue has been decided in the said
judgment.
8. The learned counsel has also relied upon a
decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in RB Dealers Pvt.
Ltd and another v . Metro Railway, Kolkata and
1 2025: KER:50813
CNR : KLHC010068912026
2026:KER:71546
ARB.A NOS. 4, 3 & 6 OF 2026
-16-
2
another , to contend that the determination of award and the
determination of compensation are separate, and the same
has been dealt with in paragraph Nos. 4.2 and 4.3 of the said
judgment. The submission in substance appears to be that
for the portion not acquired for the purpose for which it is
acquired cannot be considered as solatium and on the
highest, can be considered as damages.
9. Mr. Saiby Jose Kidangoor, the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the claimant/respondent has
submitted that Section 27 of the Act of 2013 in its fourth
limb would make it clear that even for portion which have not
been acquired but become unusable by reason of such
acquisition would be considered for solatium. The learned
counsel has also relied upon the decision of the RB Dealers
Pvt Ltd. (supra) in paragraph Nos. 4.4 and 4.5 of the said
judgment to submit that the issue raised herein is squarely
covered by RB Dealers Pvt. Ltd .(supra).
2 2019 (20) SCC 658
CNR : KLHC010068912026
2026:KER:71546
ARB.A NOS. 4, 3 & 6 OF 2026
-17-
10. Mr. P. Sathisan, the learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the respondents in connected writ appeals has
relied upon a judgment rendered by this Bench in
Arb.A.No.31 of 2025, and submits that similar issue came up
for consideration in respect of a neighboring property in
which the award was upheld and the appeal was dismissed.
In brief reply, the learned counsel for the NHAI has submitted
that in Arb.Appeal No.31 of 2025, the issue that solatium is
not payable for a portion of the property not acquired was not
specifically taken in the application for setting aside the
award and hence, the said issue never came up for
consideration before the said Division Bench.
11. The issue as to whether a portion of the building
or structure not acquired would be considered for the award
of solatium can be answered from a conjoint reading of
Section 3(p) read with Sections 27, 28 and 30 of the Right to
Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. Section 3(p)
CNR : KLHC010068912026
2026:KER:71546
ARB.A NOS. 4, 3 & 6 OF 2026
-18-
defines ‘land’ which inter alia includes benefits to arise out of
land, and things attached to the earth or permanently
fastened to anything attached to the earth. Section 27 deals
with the determination of the amount of compensation. It is
preceded by Section 26, which deals with the determination
of the market value of the land by the Collector. In
determining the compensation, the Collector, after
determining the market value of the land, would arrive at the
total amount of compensation payable to the landowner,
including the value of all assets attached to the land. The
provision does not make any distinction between a structure
which is partially acquired and one which is fully acquired.
The emphasis is on all the assets attached to the land which
forms part of the acquisition proceedings. Section 28 laid
down parameters to be considered by the Collector in
determination of award. One of the factors to be taken into
consideration in determining the amount of compensation
would be the damage sustained by the person interested by
CNR : KLHC010068912026
2026:KER:71546
ARB.A NOS. 4, 3 & 6 OF 2026
-19-
reason of the acquisition injuriously affecting his other
property in any manner or his earnings. The award must also
take into consideration the damage, if any, sustained by the
person interested at the time of the Collector taking
possession of the land, by reason of the acquisition severely
affecting his other land. The solatium would come after there
is determination of compensation. The entire award has
separate features and one of the features is solatium. The
solatium amount is required to be added in addition to the
compensation payable to any person whose land has been
acquired. The question as to whether the award holder is
entitled to the solatium on the structures which have been
rd
affected at the time of acquisition which at all falls in the 3
th
or 4 category of Section 28 would be considered for the
purpose of solatium has been conclusively decided in R B
Dealers Pvt. Ltd. (supra). In the said judgment, the relevant
provisions namely, Sections 26, 27, 28, 29 and 30 of the Act
of 2013 was considered in detail in paragraph Nos. 4.1 to 4.5,
CNR : KLHC010068912026
2026:KER:71546
ARB.A NOS. 4, 3 & 6 OF 2026
-20-
which reads as follows:
“ Insofar as the reliance placed by the
learned counsel for the petitioner upon S.69 of
the 2013 Act is concerned, it is required to be
noted that S.69 of the Act provides for the
determination of the award / final award,
which shall include the amount of
compensation determined as per S.26, S.27,
S.28 and S.29 of the 2013 Act; the additional
amount calculated at the rate of 12% per
annum on such market value determined and
payable under sub-section (1) of S.30 of the
2013 Act and solatium at the rate of one
hundred per cent over the total compensation
amount determined and payable under sub-
section (3) of S.30 of the 2013 Act.
Determination of the the final award which
shall be including the aforesaid three
components, shall be different than that of the
determination of amount of compensation. The
amount of compensation is one part of the final
award. Therefore, the submission on behalf of
the petitioner relying upon S.69 of the 2013 Act
CNR : KLHC010068912026
2026:KER:71546
ARB.A NOS. 4, 3 & 6 OF 2026
-21-
that the solatium amount equivalent to one
hundred per cent of the compensation amount
includes the amount calculated at the rate of
12% on such market value (as per sub-section
(3) of S.30 of the 2013 Act) has no substance
and cannot be accepted. What is provided
under sub-section (1) of S.30 of the 2013 Act is
the "compensation amount" and not the total
amount payable as per the final award. The
total amount of compensation payable would be
only that amount compensation determined as
per S.26 to 29 of the 2013 Act.
5. In view of the above and for the
reasons stated above, it is held that the
solatium as contemplated under sub-section (1)
of S.30 of the 2013 Act has to be calculated
only on the market value plus the value of the
assets attached to the land i.e. total
compensation amount as determined as per
S.26, S.27 and S.28 of the 2013 Act which
shall not include the additional amount at the
rate of 12% per annum on such market value as
payable under sub-section (3) of S.30 of the
CNR : KLHC010068912026
2026:KER:71546
ARB.A NOS. 4, 3 & 6 OF 2026
-22-
2013 Act. We are in complete agreement with
the view taken by the High Court. Both these
Special Leave Petitions fail and deserve to be
dismissed and are accordingly dismissed.”
12. The three components of the final award have
been explained in paragraph 4.4 of the said judgment. It also
reiterate that the value of things attached to the land or
building has to be determined as per Section 29 of the Act of
2013. Over and above the compensation determined by the
Collector under Sections 26, 27 and 28 of the Act, at the time
of making the final award, the Collector would be required to
award solatium equivalent to 100% of the compensation
amount in accordance with Sections 29 and 30 of the Act of
2013. The Arbitrator as well as the learned District Judge has
dealt with the aspect of the injury suffered by the petitioner
by reason of the partial acquisition of the building. The report
submitted before the Collector would show that the said
building has been rendered completely unusable. The
CNR : KLHC010068912026
2026:KER:71546
ARB.A NOS. 4, 3 & 6 OF 2026
-23-
Arbitrator accepted the report of the PWD after a detailed
enquiry, and the same was accepted by the learned District
Judge while deciding the application for setting aside the
award.
13. The decision in Asiamma (supra), does not lay
down any proposition as to whether solatium can be awarded
where, in the course of the proceedings, it is found that a
portion of the building has been rendered completely
unusable by reason of the acquisition, and whether, in such
circumstances, solatium can be awarded.
14. The decision in R B Dealers Pvt. Ltd. (supra) is
more apt in determining the question of payment of solatium
in the given facts and circumstances of the case. In fact, the
issue as to whether the landlord has suffered because of
partial acquisition of a portion of the building has been
considered in Sudheer Kumar V.V. v. National Highways
3
Authority of India , in which, reference has been made to
3 2024 KHC 259
CNR : KLHC010068912026
2026:KER:71546
ARB.A NOS. 4, 3 & 6 OF 2026
-24-
Project Director (supra). In any event, in Project Director
(supra), we have discussed the limited scope of interfering
with Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The view which has been arrived at by the Arbitrator is based
on the materials and evidence considered and discussed
before partly allowing the Arbitration Petition filed by the
award holder before the Collector.
15. In the case of Punjab State Civil Supplies
Corporation Limited and Another v. Sanman Rice Mills
4
and Others , it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that
Section 37 of the Act provides for a forum of appeal, inter alia ,
against the order setting aside or refusing to set aside an
arbitral award under Section 34 of the Act. The scope of
appeal is naturally akin to and limited to the grounds
enumerated under Section 34 of the Act. It is equally well
settled that the appellate power under Section 37 of the Act is
not akin to the normal appellate jurisdiction vested in the
4 AIR 2024 SC 4856
CNR : KLHC010068912026
2026:KER:71546
ARB.A NOS. 4, 3 & 6 OF 2026
-25-
civil courts for the reason that the scope of interference of the
courts with arbitral proceedings or award is very limited,
confined to the ambit of Section 34 of the Act only and even
that power cannot be exercised in a casual and a cavalier
manner.
16. The Award can be interfered only on the limited
grounds as envisaged under the Act, 1996. Moreover, when
the view taken by the Arbitrator is a possible view, the Court
in deciding an application for setting aside the award shall
not interfere with such a view or substitute such view with its
own view. Once the interpretation given by the arbitrators are
backed by logic and are reasonable, the same is required to
5
be upheld as held in MMTC Ltd. v. Vedanta Ltd. at
6
paragraph 14 and UHL Power Co. Ltd. v. State of H.P. at
paragraphs 18 and 22.
17. The jurisdiction of the Court under Section 37 of
the Act, 1996, as clarified in MMTC Ltd . case (supra) and
5 (2019) 4 SCC 163
6 (2022) 4 SCC 116
CNR : KLHC010068912026
2026:KER:71546
ARB.A NOS. 4, 3 & 6 OF 2026
-26-
reiterated in Konkan Railway Corpn. Ltd . case (supra) is
akin to the jurisdiction of the Court under Section 34 of the
Act. The scope of interference by a Court in an appeal under
Section 37 of the Act, 1996, in examining an order setting
aside or refusing to set aside an award, is restricted and
subject to the same grounds as the challenge under Section
34 of the Act. The jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Act is
exercised only to see if the Arbitral Tribunal's view is perverse
or manifestly arbitrary. [See Konkan Railway Corpn. Ltd .
case (supra)].
7
18. In Somdatt Builders – NCC – NEC(JV) v. NHAI ,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in referring to Larsen Air
8
Conditioning and Refrigeration Co. v. Union of India and
9
Reliance Infrastructure Ltd. v. State of Goa , has
observed as under:
“It is necessary to remind the courts that a
great deal of restraint is required to be
7 2025 SCC OnLine SC 170
8 (2023) 15 SCC 472
9 (2024) 1 SCC 479
CNR : KLHC010068912026
2026:KER:71546
ARB.A NOS. 4, 3 & 6 OF 2026
-27-
shown while examining the validity of an
arbitral award when such an award has
been upheld, wholly or substantially, under
Section 34 of the 1996 Act. Section 37 of the
1996 Act grants narrower scope to the
appellate court to review the findings in an
arbitral award if it has been upheld or
substantially upheld under Section 34.
Frequent interference with arbitral awards
would defeat the very purpose of the 1996
Act.”
(emphasis supplied)*
19. The aforesaid view has been reiterated in a fairly
recent decision in C & C Constructions Ltd. v. IRCON
10
International Ltd. , in which it has been stated that, “in
appeal, Section 37 of the Act grants narrower scope to the
appellate court to review the findings in an award, if it has
been upheld, or substantially upheld under Section 34”.
(emphasis supplied). The views expressed by the Arbitrator
have been accepted by learned Additional District Judge,
10 (2025) 4 SCC 234
CNR : KLHC010068912026
2026:KER:71546
ARB.A NOS. 4, 3 & 6 OF 2026
-28-
Kasaragod, and therefore, the court under Section 37 would
be extremely chary and circumspect in scrutinising the
award.
20. The object of the Act, 1996 is a minimum
intervention by the Court in interfering with an Award and
unless the grounds mentioned under Section 34 of the Act is
fulfilled, the Court should be extremely reluctant to interfere
with the Award. The elaborate discussion made by the
Arbitrator would show that the Arbitrator has considered,
analysed and relied upon the materials, namely, the
independent reports from the PWD officials, who are experts
on the subject, and the joint inspection report prepared by
the PWD Buildings along with the NHAI. Independent report
from the Executive Engineer, PWD Builders was also
considered where-from it was found that partial acquisition of
the residential house will make it unstable, useless and
unusable and the Award holder and his family members
would not be in a position to lead a comfortable and safe life
CNR : KLHC010068912026
2026:KER:71546
ARB.A NOS. 4, 3 & 6 OF 2026
-29-
in the remaining portion of the house.
21. It would thus appear that the finding was arrived
at on an appreciation of the materials on record, which, inter
alia, include the report by PWD, CALA and Tahsildar,
Kasaragod. The objection to such reports was also considered
by the Arbitrator while dealing with contention No.4
regarding the claim of the award holder for the acquisition of
full house.
22. Unless the said Award is manifestly perverse,
arbitrary, based on no evidence and passed in violation of the
principles of natural justice, the Court will be extremely
reluctant to interfere with the Award. The appellate power
exercised by the Court under Section 37 of the Act, 1996 is
not that of an Appellate Authority and much importance has
to be attached to the Award which, in the instant case, was
passed by an authority who is conversant with the nature of
the dispute required to be adjudicated under Section 3G(5) of
the National Highways Act, 1956.
CNR : KLHC010068912026
2026:KER:71546
ARB.A NOS. 4, 3 & 6 OF 2026
-30-
23. Similar report following the same and similar
procedure was submitted and considered in respect of the
commercial building forming the subject matter of Arbitration
Appeal No. 3 of 2026. The finding would show that the said
building is unstable, useless and inhabitable.
On such consideration, we do not find any reason to
interfere with the Award. The Appeals stand dismissed.
However, there shall be no order as to costs.
Sd/-
SOUMEN SEN
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
SYAM KUMAR V.M.
JUDGE
uu/smmx
CNR : KLHC010068912026
2026:KER:71546
ARB.A NOS. 4, 3 & 6 OF 2026
-31-
APPENDIX OF ARB.A NO. 4 OF 2026
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 Certified copy of Order dated
29.11.2025 in OP 46 of 2025 in the
files of Addl.Distict Court Kasargod
RESPONDENT ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 True copy of the report vide
No.D2/Valuation/NH-66/2017(12720 dated
04.11.2020 issued Asst. Executive
Engineer to Executive Engineer PWD
Roads Division, Kasargod along with
English translation.
Annexure A 2 True copy of the report vide
No.LAC-250/Chenikkala issued by Special
Deputy Collector, LA (NH) to Arbitrator
and District Collector Kasargod, dated
17.10.2024along with English
translation.