Soumen Sen, C.J.

1. 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- 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 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:

                  “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, 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 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 Collector holding that the 1st 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 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 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, 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 and others v. The Chief Engineer (LA) and Others 2025: KER:50813 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 another 2019 (20) SCC 658 , 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).

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) 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 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 affected at the time of acquisition which at all falls in the 3rd or 4th 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, 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 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 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 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 Authority of India 2024 KHC 259 , in which, reference has been made to 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 and Others AIR 2024 SC 4856 , 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 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 be upheld as held in MMTC Ltd. v. Vedanta Ltd. (2019) 4 SCC 163 at paragraph 14 and UHL Power Co. Ltd. v. State of H.P. (2022) 4 SCC 116 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 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)].

18. In Somdatt Builders – NCC – NEC(JV) v. NHAI 2025 SCC OnLine SC 170 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court in referring to Larsen Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Co. v. Union of India (2023) 15 SCC 472 and Reliance Infrastructure Ltd. v. State of Goa (2024) 1 SCC 479 has observed as under:

                  “It is necessary to remind the courts that a great deal of restraint is required to be 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 International Ltd. (2025) 4 SCC 234 , 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, 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 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.

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.