JUDGMENT 1. The Petitioners namely the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board prepared an estimate for augmenting the power supply and the same was approved by the Technical Branch of the Board under B.P.(FB) No.278, dated 11.10.1991 for increasing the current carrying capacity by erecting a 110 KV Single Circuit Line on Double Circuit Tower by changing Dog Conductor into Panther Conductor. Pursuant to the said B.P., the Board had done certain investigation and ultimately found that the said tower could be established in the land belonging to the First Respondent. On coming to know this, the First Respondent had made his objections to the Second Petitioner orally. When the work was being proceeded with, on behalf of the First Respondent, a Lawyer’s Notice dated 18.4.1994 was issued asking the Third Petitioner not to continue with any kind of construction work. This notice was followed by another letter dated 3.5.1994. 2. Since on behalf of the Board, the work was going on, the First Respondent approached this Court and had filed a Writ Petition in W.P. No.12824 of 1994. This Court by order dated 15.9.1994 had directed the First Respondent to send a representation to the Board requesting the Board to pay the compensation. Pursuant to the said order, on behalf of the Board, a request was made to the Sub-Register to furnish the market value of the land in question as of July 1994. Based on the report given by the Sub-Registrar, Villivakkam, the Third Petitioner was prepared to pay the amount at the rate of `69/- per sq.ft. for an extent of 930.50 sq.ft., out of the entire extent of 2537 sq.ft. owned by the First Respondent. The said compensation was communicated to the First Respondent by the Third Petitioner’s letter dated 13.5.1995. However, the First Respondent was not willing to accept the compensation on the ground that the compensation should be paid for the entire plot owned by the First Respondent, because according to the First Respondent, the area cannot be used for any other purpose because of the construction of heavy tower legs. 3. Since the compensation offered by the Board was not accepted by the First Respondent, the Superintending Engineer had cancelled the Third Petitioner’s letter dated 9.2.1996 and stated that the matter may be referred to arbitration. 3. Since the compensation offered by the Board was not accepted by the First Respondent, the Superintending Engineer had cancelled the Third Petitioner’s letter dated 9.2.1996 and stated that the matter may be referred to arbitration. Aggrieved against the order passed by the Superintending Engineer, the First Respondent had initiated Contempt Petition before this Court in Contempt Petition No.171 of 1996. This Court disposed of the said Contempt Petition holding that the rate offered by the Board could be received by the First Respondent and if still aggrieved by the amount so fixed, the First Respondent could refer the matter to arbitration as provided under Section 19(2) of the Indian Electricity Supply Act, 1910. Thereafter, the First Respondent sent a letter dated 13.11.1996 to the Third Petitioner to disburse the amount offered, namely, `63,274/- without prejudice to the First Respondent’s right and contentions. A reply dated 27.2.1997 was sent on behalf of the Board to the First Respondent. Not satisfying with the reply sent by the Board, the First Respondent once again approached this Court by filing W.P.No.18374 of 1998 for a mandamus to consider the First Respondent’s letter dated 13.11.1996 and consequently direct the Petitioners to appoint their arbitrator and the same was disposed of by this Court by order dated 4.12.2000. 4. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court, an Arbitral Tribunal was constituted. The First Respondent appointed the Third Respondent as his nominee Arbitrator and in turn, the Board had appointed the Fourth Respondent as its nominee Arbitrator and both the Arbitrators had in turn appointed the Second Respondent as the Presiding Arbitrator. The First Respondent filed a Claim Statement before the Arbitral Tribunal on 18.4.2002 wherein the First Respondent sought for a compensation of `4,00,000/- for his plot. The Petitioners filed a Counter on 24.4.2002. Thereafter, an inspection of site was held on 5.2002. The Arbitral Tribunal after considering the documents produced by both the parties, passed an Award on 15.5.2003, fixing the compensation at `68/- per sq.ft. for the entire land owned by the First Respondent, namely, 2537 sq.ft. and the total compensation awarded is `1,72,516/-. In addition to the fixing the compensation, the Arbitral Tribunal has awarded an additional amount at 12% of the land value which comes to `22,047.48. The solatium is calculated at 30% of the land value, which comes to `51,754.80. for the entire land owned by the First Respondent, namely, 2537 sq.ft. and the total compensation awarded is `1,72,516/-. In addition to the fixing the compensation, the Arbitral Tribunal has awarded an additional amount at 12% of the land value which comes to `22,047.48. The solatium is calculated at 30% of the land value, which comes to `51,754.80. Hence, the total compensation is determined at `2,46,318.24 and the interest is calculated at 9% for first one year on the land value, and thereafter, the claimant is entitled to interest at 15% p.a. on the land value till the date of realization of the entire amount. Aggrieved over the said Award passed by the Arbitral Tribunal, the Petitioners have come forward with this Petition to set aside the said Award. 5. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on either side and also perused the materials placed on record. 6. The vehement contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners is the First Respondent can invoke the arbitration clause as provided under Section 19(2) of the Electricity Supply Act and in an Arbitral proceedings, the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act cannot be invoked and on that ground alone, the award passed by the Arbitral Tribunal has to be set aside. 7. Per contra, the learned Counsel appearing for the First Respondent contended that the award passed by the Arbitral Tribunal is very low. Since the land belongs to the First Respondent has been acquired for the purpose of erecting the 110 KC Single Circuit Line on Doubt Circuit Tower by changing Dog Conductor into Panther Conductor the Arbitral Tribunal has rightly invoked the provisions of Land Acquisition Act for fixing compensation and accordingly awarded compensation and hence there is no need to interfere with the award passed by the Arbitral Tribunal and hence, this Petition has to be dismissed. 8. Now, the short point for my consideration is in an Arbitral proceedings for fixation of compensation for erection of the High Tension Towers whether the Arbitral Tribunal can invoke the provisions of Land Acquisition Act? 9. It is not in dispute that the First Respondent is the owner of the plot comprised in S.No.252/1, Patta No.606 in Village No.54, Korattur Village. 9. It is not in dispute that the First Respondent is the owner of the plot comprised in S.No.252/1, Patta No.606 in Village No.54, Korattur Village. It is also not in dispute that in the year 1994 the First Respondent came to know that the Petitioners have located the site owned by the First Respondent for erection of 110 KV Single Circuit Line on Double Circuit Tower by changing Dog Conductor into Panther Conductor for which, the First Respondent made his objection to the Petitioners. Pursuant to the order dated 15.9.1994 passed by this Court in W.P.No.12824 of 1994, the Third Petitioner was prepared to pay the amount at the rate of `69/- per sq.ft. for an extent of 930.50 sq.ft., out of the entire extent of 2537 sq.ft owned by the First respondent. However, the First Respondent was not willing to accept the compensation on the ground that the compensation should be paid for the entire plot owned by the First Respondent, because according to the First Respondent, the area cannot be used for any other purpose because of the construction of heavy tower legs. The First Respondent once again approached this Court by filing W.P.No.18374 of 1998 for a Mandamus to consider the First Respondent’s letter dated 13.11.1996 and consequently direct the Petitioners to appoint their Arbitrator and the same was disposed of by this Court by order dated 4.12.2000. Pursuant to the order of this Court, an Arbitral Tribunal was constituted. The First Respondent nominated the Third Respondent as Arbitrator and in turn, the Petitioner’s Board nominated the Fourth Respondent as its Arbitrator and both the Arbitrators had in turn appointed the Second Respondent as the Presiding Arbitrator and the first sitting of the Arbitral Tribunal was held on 18.4.2002. The Arbitral Tribunal has passed the final Award on 12.5.2003. 10. On a perusal of the Award it is seen that the Arbitral Tribunal has fixed the compensation for the entire land observing the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and interest and solatium also has been arrived at and ultimately compensation has been fixed. On a perusal of the Claim Petition it is seen that even interest has not been claimed by the First Respondent. Whereas the Arbitral Tribunal has awarded interest. On a perusal of the Claim Petition it is seen that even interest has not been claimed by the First Respondent. Whereas the Arbitral Tribunal has awarded interest. From perusal of the award it is clear that the land in question has been acquired for the purpose of erecting the Electricity High Tension Towers. As per the Award, the land has to be taken as a whole even though the First Respondent wanted to retain the small portion of the land for his use. The argument of the First Respondent is that major portion of the land has been used for the erection of High Tension Towers leaving the small space for him. Whereas the contention of the First Petitioners is the remaining land could not be used for any other purpose since there is High Tension Electric Power Lines are lying over the head of the land. Since the Land Acquisition Act is one of the Central Act in which the lands are acquired for various reasons which governed by throughout the country I am of the view that the Arbitral Tribunal has not committed any error or wrong in observing the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. The Arbitral Tribunal can travel with other relevant Acts also. In this case, the Arbitral Tribunal has relied on the principles of Land Acquisition Act to come to a right and correct conclusion in this case. In such circumstances, the Award passed by the Arbitral Tribunal is correct and there is no violation of Principles of Natural Justice or Public Policy. Hence, this Petition is dismissed. The Award passed by the Arbitral Tribunal is confirmed. 11. At this juncture, the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners informed this Court that on 14.2.2003 a sum of `1,72,516/-has been paid to the First Respondent and in turn the amount has been received by him. If it is so, the Petitioners are directed to deposit the remaining amount with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, within a period of four weeks from today.