SHEO KUMAR SINGH,J. - (1.) This is first appeal under Section 37 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 against judgment and order dated 30.9.2015 passed by the District Judge Sitapur in Miscellaneous Civil Case No.15 of 2015 filed under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act .
(2.) Brief facts giving rise to the present appeal is that national highway NS-24 was under construction and the land gata No. 471 area 0.144 Hectare belonging to the appellant was acquired and compensation was awarded according to law. Aggrieved by the payment of compensation, the appellant fled an application under Section 3G of the National high Way Act 1956 before the District Magistrate Lucknow/ Arbitrator and Arbitrator/District Magistrate after affording an opportunity of hearing all the parties/land holders and national highway authority decided the application vide order dated 27.2.2015. Aggrieved by the order of the District Magistrate, the appellant filed a miscellaneous application No.15 of 2015 and the learned District Judge vide roder dated 30.9.2015 rejected the application. Learned counsel for appellant has submitted that while considering the amount of compensation, the learned court and Arbitrator ignored the circle rate of the area and also failed to assess the land which was non agricultural land. It has further been submitted that the non agricultural land was treated as agricultural land and a lesser amount of compensation was paid to the appellant. A prayer has been made to quash the order passed by the District Judge in Miscellaneous Case mentioned above and also to award the compensation at the rate of Rs. 4000/- per square metre in place of Rs. 1500/- per square metre.
(3.) We have heard learned counsel for appellant Sri Pankaj Srivastva and learned counsel for State and perused the record. It has been contended by learned counsel for State that the scope of interference under Section 34 of Arbitration Act is much limited and award can be set aside only on certain grounds mentioned therein while it is challenged before the competent court. The appellant has moved a miscellaneous application before the court of learned District Judge with a prayer to enhance the amount of compensation and the learned court while disposing the application found that the application was not maintainable in light of Section 34(2) of the aforesaid Act.;