Judgment Shylendra Kumar, J., This is an appeal under section 37(1)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by the land owner whose lands had come to be acquired for the purpose of road widening under the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956 (for short ‘the Act’). 2. It appears the land acquisition officer had determined the compensation payable to the owner at Rs.45/- per square foot and the owner being aggrieved or not satisfied with this meager compensation, had sought for reference to the Arbitrator in terms of sub-section (5) of section 3G of the Act. Section 3G of the Act reads as under: 3G. Determination of amount payable as compensation (1) Where any land is acquired under this Act, there shall be paid an amount which shall be determined by an order of the competent authority. (2) Where the right of user or any right in the nature of an easement on any land is acquired under this Act, there shall be paid an amount to the owner and any other person whose right of enjoyment in that land has been affected in any manner whatsoever by reason of such acquisition an amount calculated at ten per cent, of the amount determined under sub-section (1), for that land. (3) Before proceeding to determine the amount under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), the competent authority shall give a public notice published in two local newspapers, one of which will be in a vernacular language inviting claims from all persons interested in the land to be acquired. (4) Such notice shall state the particulars of the land and shall require all persons interested in such land to appear in person or by an agent or by a legal practitioner referred to in sub-section (2) of section 3C, before the competent authority, at a time and place and to state the nature of their respective interest in such land. (5) If the amount determined by the competent authority under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) is not acceptable to either of the parties, the amount shall, on an application by either of the parties, be determined by the arbitrator to be appointed by the Central Government. (6) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996) shall apply to every arbitration under this Act. (6) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996) shall apply to every arbitration under this Act. (7) The competent authority or the arbitrator while determining the amount under sub-section (1) or sub-section (5), as the case may be, shall take into consideration – (a) the market value of the land on the date of publication of the notification under section 3A; (b) the damage, if any, sustained by the person interested at the time of taking possession of the land, by reason of the severing of such land from other land; (c) the damage, if any, sustained by the person interested at the time of taking possession of the land, by reason of the acquisition injuriously affecting his other immovable property in any manner, or his earnings; (d) if, inconsequences of the acquisition of the land, the person interested is compelled to change his residence or place of business, the reasonable expenses, if any, incidental to such change. 3. The Deputy Commissioner having been appointed as an Arbitrator for such purpose by the Central Government, examined the matter and allowed the application of the appellant – land owner in its entirety on enhancing the compensation amount from Rs.45/- per square foot awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer to Rs.400/- per square foot. 4. In between, it appears the claimant – owner had come up with the application to amend the claim petition for enhancing the compensation amount from not Rs.400/- per square foot as he had originally claimed before the Arbitrator, but Rs.1,000/- per square foot. 5. But this application had been rejected by the Arbitrator earlier and it was thereafter the owner’s claim petition was allowed in full enhancing the quantum of compensation payable in respect of land acquired by the authority from Rs.45/- to Rs.400/- per square foot. 6. It appears the land owner as well as the Highway Authorities both were aggrieved by the Award passed by the Arbitrator. Both had recourse to provision of Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. While the Highway Authority – competent authority sought for setting aside the award on the grounds urged in the application, the owner though filed an application under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, nevertheless, sought for enhancement of compensation to Rs.1,000/- per square foot. 7. While the Highway Authority – competent authority sought for setting aside the award on the grounds urged in the application, the owner though filed an application under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, nevertheless, sought for enhancement of compensation to Rs.1,000/- per square foot. 7. The learned District Judge who acted as the Judge presiding over the court to which such applications are to be made under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, examined both applications together and in terms of the impugned order and award, while rightly rejected the application filed by the present appellant – land owner under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 as not tenable, partly allowed the application filed by the competent authority by setting aside the award passed by the Arbitrator, but, nevertheless, remanded the matter to the Arbitrator for a fresh consideration of the application of the competent authority filed under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 8. It is against this common order and award, the present appeal and in this appeal the challenge is confined to the order in so far as it relates to the rejection of the appellant’s application before the learned District Judge acting as a court. 9. We have heard Sri G I Gachchinamath, learned counsel for the appellant – land owner. 10. Sri G I Gachchinamath, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contends that the court should have enhanced compensation from Rs.400/- per square foot to Rs.1,000/- per square foot as sought for by the appellant, particularly, as the value of the land in the vicinity is in that range etc… 11. It is not necessary for us to go into question as urged by learned counsel for the appellant for the simple reason that the order passed by the learned Judge of the District Court to reject the appellant’s application under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 does not suffer from any infirmity much less any illegality. 12. It is not necessary for us to go into question as urged by learned counsel for the appellant for the simple reason that the order passed by the learned Judge of the District Court to reject the appellant’s application under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 does not suffer from any infirmity much less any illegality. 12. A reading of section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 clearly indicates that it is a provision to enable a person aggrieved with the award to seek for setting aside the award on any one or the other of the enumerated grounds as indicated in sub-section (2) of section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 reading as under: 34. Application for setting aside arbitral award: (2) An arbitral award may be set aside by the Court only if – (a) the party making the application furnishes proof that - (i) a party was under some incapacity, or (ii) the arbitration agreement is not valid under the law to which the parties have subjected it or, failing any indication thereon, under the law for the time being in force; or (iii) the party making the application was not given proper notice of the appointment of an arbitrator or of the arbitral proceedings or was otherwise unable to present his case; or (iv) the arbitral award deals with a dispute not contemplated by or not falling within the terms of the submission to arbitration, or it contains decisions on matters beyond the scope of the submission to arbitration; Provided that, if the decisions on matters submitted to arbitration can be separated from those not so submitted, only that part of the arbitral award which contains decisions on matters not submitted to arbitration may be set aside; or (v) the composition of the arbitral tribunal or the arbitral procedure was not in accordance with the agreement of the parties, unless such agreement was in conflict with a provision of this Part from which the parties cannot derogate, or, failing such agreement, was not in accordance with this Part; or (b) the Court finds that – (i) the subject-matter of the dispute is not capable of settlement by arbitration under the law for the time being in force, or (ii) the arbitral award is in conflict with the public policy of India. Explanation – Without prejudice to the generality of sub-clause (ii), it is hereby declared for the avoidance of any doubt, that an award is in conflict with the public policy of India if the making of the award was induced or affected by fraud or corruption or was in violation of Section 75 or Section 81. 13. A provision for setting aside an award contending that the award is not sustainable in law on any one of the grounds as indicated above can never be construed as a provision enabling the land owner seeking for enhancement of the compensation amount as determined by the Arbitrator. The learned Judge of the District Court has rightly rejected the application under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The application itself was not tenable. The appeal also is equally not tenable and even otherwise without any merit. 14. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.