JUDGMENT Banwari Lal Sharma, J. Appellant-National Highway Authority of India has preferred this misc. appeal under Section 37 (1)(b) of Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 impugning the order dated 27.04.2016 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 5, Jaipur Metropolitan Jaipur in Civil Misc. Case (Arbitration) No. 333/2015 whereby learned Court below dismissed the objections of appellant-petitioner submitted under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 2. The brief facts of the case are that Central Government for the public interest intended to acquire certain land which was required for construction of the National Highway No. 12, JaipurTonk-Devali section for widening/strengthening of the road from 18.700 Km to 52.484 Km into 4/ 6 lane under section 3-A by notification dated 23.07.2009 published in the Official Gazette thereby declaring its intention to acquire the said land duly published under section 3-A-(3) in two local newspapers being "Dainik Badte Kadam" and "Khabron ki Duniya" on 3.09.2009 in Hindi language and invited objections within 21 days from the date of publication of notification under Section 3-A-(1) i.e. 23.07.2009. 3. Respondent No. 3 filed its objections under section 3C of the National Highways Act, 1956, alongwith a permission granted by Competent Authority/Deputy Commissioner Zone-11, Jaipur Development Authority under section 90-B of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956. The Competent Authority of Land Acquisition (C.A.L.A.) while determining the compensation held that the Respondent No. 3 has sought permission under section 90B of the Land Revenue Act, 1956 and as such the land in question stood vested to the Jaipur Development Authority (J.D.A.). However, JDA did not issue any Patta in the nature of residential, commercial or industrial to the respondent No. 3. As such, C.A.L.A. vide award dated 25.06.2010, treated the nature of land as agriculture (Barani-3) and determined the amount payable to the respondent No. 3. Accordingly a report was sent by C.A.L.A. to the Central Government. 4. On 30.10.2009, Central Government issued a notification under section 3D of the National Highways Act, 1956 that by the notification of 3-A the acquired land in question bearing khasra no. Accordingly a report was sent by C.A.L.A. to the Central Government. 4. On 30.10.2009, Central Government issued a notification under section 3D of the National Highways Act, 1956 that by the notification of 3-A the acquired land in question bearing khasra no. 1877/2000 containing 1300 Square meter, Khasra No.1885 containing 1200 Square meter, Khasra No.1894 containing 700 Square meter, Khasra No. 1895 containing 2800 Square meter, Khasra No. 1896 containing 3100 Square meter, Khasra No. 1932 containing 4500 Square meter, Khasra No. 1933 containing 3100 Square meter, Khasra No.1934 containing 2500 Square meter, Khasra No.1935 containing 300 Square meter and Khasra No. 1941 containing 4500 Square meter situated at village Barkheda, Tehsil Chaksu, District Jaipur stood acquired for the public purpose. The nature of the land as submitted as Barani-3 in the report of the Competent Authority was based on available revenue records, based on which the notification under section 3-D of the N.H. Act, 1956 was published which included the land of the respondent No. 3 amongst others, for the public purpose. 5. Competent authority passed an award on 25.06.2010 considering the fact that the land vested with J.D.A. 6. Respondent No. 3 filed an application before the ArbitratorDistrict Collector, Jaipur and submitted his objections against the award dated 25.06.2010 and learned Arbitrator vide award dated 06.04.2015 passed the award in favour of respondent No. 3, considering the fact that the land in question is residential one, as order under Section 90-B has already been passed in favour of respondent No.- 3, against which appellant filed objections under Section 34 of Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 before learned Additional District Judge No. 5, Jaipur Metropolitan Jaipur which was registered as civil misc. Case (Arbitration) No. 333/2015 and was dismissed vide impugned order dated 27.04.2016, against which this misc. appeal is preferred under Section 37(1)(b) of Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 before this Court. 7. Mr. Vikas Soni learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant submits that as per revenue record, the land in question is recorded as agriculture land (Barani-3) which is apparent from the jamabandi and other revenue record. 8. appeal is preferred under Section 37(1)(b) of Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 before this Court. 7. Mr. Vikas Soni learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant submits that as per revenue record, the land in question is recorded as agriculture land (Barani-3) which is apparent from the jamabandi and other revenue record. 8. He further submits that it is true that the order has been passed in regard to the land in question under Section 90-B of Land Revenue Act in favour of respondent No.- 3 but after passing the order under Section 90-B of Land Revenue Act, neither conversion charges were deposited nor patta was issued in favour of respondent No.- 3 and after passing the order under Section 90- B of Land Revenue Act, the land in question vest to J.D.A., therefore respondent No.-3 is not entitled for compensation treating the land in question as residential one. Further, the land vest in J.D.A., therefore respondent No. 3 is not entitled for any compensation at all. Without considering all these facts, learned Arbitrator wrongly passed the award treating the land as residential one. Further, since it is against the public policy, therefore learned Court below wrongly rejected the objections submitted by the appellant, therefore this appeal may be allowed and the award passed by learned Collector on 06.04.2015 may be quashed and set aside and the award passed by the competent Authority dated 25.06.2010 may be affirmed. 9. Learned counsel relied upon Anil Kumar Jain & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1013/2010) decided by co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 14.02.2014. 10. Mr. M.M. Ranjan learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.-3 supported the impugned order and submitted that it is true that initially the land in question was agricultural land but respondent No. 3 surrendered the land to the J.D.A. and order under Section 90-B of the Land Revenue Act, 1996 has already been passed. He submits that when the land has already been surrendered by the respondent No. 3 and order under Section 90-B (3) has been passed on his application and nature of land has been permitted to change by the competent Authority, then as per proviso of Section 90-B (6), respondent No.- 3 was having rights to planned development in accordance with the rules, regulations and bye-laws applicable for the housing purposes. 11. 11. He further submits that competent Authority passed the award in favour of respondent No. 3 and Arbitrator also enhanced the same award considering the land in question as residential one in favour of respondent No. 3. He submits that appellant never raised any objection regarding the entitlement for receiving compensation amount by respondent No. 3 now, without raising any objection in regard to the entitlement in memo of appeal, appellant cannot raise this objection before this Court during oral arguments. Not only this J.D.A. also never claimed compensation. 12. He submits that issuing patta and depositing conversion charges is the matter between State Government/ J.D.A. and respondent No. 3. Since, nature of land has already been changed vide order dated 21.10.2007 about three years prior to the acquisition, therefore considering this fact learned Arbitrator rightly awarded compensation treating the land in question as residential one and the objections which cannot be said against the public policy and learned Court below rightly rejected the objections submitted by the appellant. 13. He further submits that the land in question is residential or agricultural is a question of fact and if the Arbitrator considered the land as residential one, it cannot be said that it is against the public policy, therefore the application regarding objections submitted under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 by the appellant is not maintainable at all because the award is not against the public policy, therefore the appeal of appellant devoids merit which may be dismissed. 14. I have considered the submissions made at Bar. 15. In the matter of Anil Kumar Jain & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. Co-ordinate Bench of this Court observed that :- "(ii) In the cases where 90B proceedings were completed with issuance of Patta, compensation should be awarded to Patta holders to the extent of land possessed by them under those Pattas. For the remaining land vest in the Municipalities, compensation should be awarded to the Municipalities and accordingly, the impugned order is modified/clarified to that extent. 16. Which is not disputed but here in the case in hand learned senior counsel Mr. M.M. Ranjan at this juncture argued that society has issued pattas to its members but they have surrendered pattas in favour of the society, therefore society is entitled for compensation and individual member didn't come forward for separate compensation. 16. Which is not disputed but here in the case in hand learned senior counsel Mr. M.M. Ranjan at this juncture argued that society has issued pattas to its members but they have surrendered pattas in favour of the society, therefore society is entitled for compensation and individual member didn't come forward for separate compensation. Further issuance of patta by J.D.A. is a procedure after passing the award under Section 90-B of the Act of 1956, therefore respondent No. 3 is entitled for compensation as it is not disputed that competent authority has converted the land from agricultural to residential, rate of agricultural land was considered as Rs. 371/- per square meter and for residential it was considered as Rs. 747.79/- per square meter as the cost of land in the nature of residential. The dispute between the parties is only regarding the nature of land not regarding the rate of residential land or the construction. Since, nature of land has already been changed and which was considered by the Arbitrator and the same was affirmed by the learned Court below. The nature of land is a question of fact when the same has considered and decided by the Arbitrator, then it cannot be re-considered while deciding objections under Section 34 of the Act of 1996. 17. The District Judge rightly observed that the arbitral award dated 06.04.2012 is neither in conflict with public policy nor is unlawful. The award can only be challenged on the grounds mentioned in Section 34 of the Act of 1996, and the scope of judicial review is very limited. 18. In the matter of Union of India vs. Ajmer Construction Company, (1997) AIR Raj. 65, co-ordinate Bench of this Court observed that :- "Normally, courts encourage settlement of dispute by arbitration. The Court, therefore, approach an award with a view to support it, if it is reasonably possible rather than to destroy it by calling it illegal. This is also apparent from the scheme of Section 13 of the Act. Section 13 contains the grounds on which the award Can be set aside. The legislature has limited the scope of the Court in assailing the award. The award is thus final and conclusive except where the arbitrator has misconducted himself or the proceedings or has committed an error of law apparent on the face of the award. Section 13 contains the grounds on which the award Can be set aside. The legislature has limited the scope of the Court in assailing the award. The award is thus final and conclusive except where the arbitrator has misconducted himself or the proceedings or has committed an error of law apparent on the face of the award. The Court cannot approach on merits and sit in appeal over it. Normally, the arbitrator is given finality regarding his decision on facts." 19. The Supreme Court of India in Associate Builders v. Delhi Development Authority, (2015) 3 SCC 49 has dealt with some of the key issues involving ambit and scope of challenge of a award under Section 34 of Act of 1996. The Apex Court discussed and clarified some of the earlier rulings on the scope of 'public policy' in Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 20. Since, there is no allegation of misconduct against the Arbitrator and as discussed above the award is not found against the public policy and there is limited scope under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 in interference of the award, therefore the appeal devoids merit which is hereby dismissed and impugned order is affirmed. 21. At this juncture, learned counsel for the appellant submits that excess amount of Rs. 82,00,000/- was deposited before the Executing Court, therefore same may be directed to return to appellant. 22. Suffice to say that appellant may make request before the Executing Court regarding the excess amount and it is the domain of Executing Court to decide the actual amount of award, therefore this Court is not passing any order regarding this amount.