ORDER : Challenge in these civil revision petitions is made to the orders, dated 07.02.2009, passed in unnumbered I.A.Nos.....of 2008 in Arbitration O.P.Nos. 5718, 5719 of 2008, 92777 & 92778 of 2007, by the District Collector/Arbitrator, Thoothukudi, in his proceedings in Na.Ka.n3/5718/08, n3/5719/07, n3/92777/07 and n3/92778/07 respectively. 2. As could be seen from the materials placed on record, the lands belonging to the petitioners had been acquired and accordingly, it is stated that the first respondent had fixed the award, to which the petitioners are entitled to and according to the petitioners, by valuing the properties acquired at a low price, contrary to law and the materials available on record, accordingly, aggrieved over the same, it is found that the petitioners had moved the District Collector, who is the nominated Arbitrator for passing the suitable award and accordingly, in the arbitration original petitions preferred by them respectively, they had sought for passing the award at the rate of Rs. 4.500/- per sq.meter with solatium at 30%, with an amount calculated at the rate of 12% per annum on such market value, from the date of entering to the date of taking possession i.e., 09.01.2004 to 16.07.2005 and to direct the respondents to deposit the enhanced amount with interest at the rate of 9% for the period from entering into the land and thereafter at the rate of 15% with costs. The respondents are found to have opposed the abovesaid arbitration original petitions preferred by the petitioners by filing the counter and contended that the value of the properties acquired had been rightly fixed by the competent Authority, namely, the first respondent herein and accordingly, prayed for the dismissal of the arbitration original petitions. The respondents are found to have opposed the abovesaid arbitration original petitions preferred by the petitioners by filing the counter and contended that the value of the properties acquired had been rightly fixed by the competent Authority, namely, the first respondent herein and accordingly, prayed for the dismissal of the arbitration original petitions. Pending the abovesaid arbitration original petitions, it is found that the petitioners had moved the amendment applications to amend the arbitration original petitions as detailed in the petitions and with reference to their case, according to them, as there occurred a mistake in the prayer portion instead of the words “from the date of the notification” they have stated that “from the date of entering to the date of taking possession” and also failed to calculate the interest for the aggregate amount, which is a statutory one and also recognized by the Apex Court and accordingly, putting forth the case that the abovesaid mistakes had crept in neither wilfully nor wantonly and only on account of the typographical error and accordingly, sought for the necessary amendment in the arbitration original petitions as prayed for in the amendment applications. 3. The respondents resisted the abovesaid amendment applications putting forth the case that the claim of the petitioners seeking enhanced compensation for the lands acquired, from the date of notification to the date of taking possession is incorrect as the possession of the lands is not at all taken even as on date and the question of interest would not arise and the compensation, to which the petitioners are entitled to, would be paid only as per the National Highways Act, 1956 and the solatium of 30% is applicable only to the lands acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and it is not applicable to the lands acquired under the National Highways Act, 1956 and inasmuch as the lands for which, the enhanced compensation is sought for, had been acquired under the National Highways Act, 1956, the solatium of 30% is not permissible under the said Act and accordingly, contending that all the formalities under the National Highways Act, 1956 have been adopted properly without any deviation, prayed for the dismissal of the amendment applications. 4. 4. The Arbitrator, namely, the District Collector holding that the lands of the petitioners had been acquired under the National Highways Act, 1956 and accordingly, determining that the compensation could be awarded in favour of the petitioners only as per the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956 and not under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as putforth by the respondents and further, determining that 30% solatium sought for by the petitioners is not permissible under the National Highways Act, 1956 and the petitioners are also not entitled to claim interest as prayed for and accordingly, dismissed the amendment applications preferred by the petitioners. Impugning the same, the present civil revision petitions have been laid. 5. It is not in dispute that the lands of the petitioners had been acquired under the National Highways Act, 1956. Aggrieved over the award fixed by the competent Authority, namely, the first respondent, as provided under the abovesaid Act, the petitioners had preferred the arbitration original petitions to the Arbitrator, namely, the District Collector and accordingly, sought for the enhanced compensation as putforth in the arbitration original petitions. Pending the abovesaid arbitration original petitions, seeking amendment of the same, as regards the reliefs sought, particularly, stating that they had failed to seek the compensation from the date of the notification to the date of taking possession and also failed to calculate the interest for the aggregate amount, which is a statutory one and also recognized by the Apex Court and accordingly, prayed for the necessary amendments. However, the Arbitrator, accepting the stand of the respondents, holding that the National Highways Act, 1956, does not provide for the claim of solatium of 30% as prayed for by the petitioners and also the interest amount as putforth by them, on that footing chose to dismiss the amendment applications. 6. However, the Arbitrator, accepting the stand of the respondents, holding that the National Highways Act, 1956, does not provide for the claim of solatium of 30% as prayed for by the petitioners and also the interest amount as putforth by them, on that footing chose to dismiss the amendment applications. 6. During the course of arguments, it is contended by the petitioners' counsel that the Arbitrator has failed to take into consideration the amendments sought for by the petitioners with reference to the reliefs sought for in the arbitration original petitions and by way of allowing the amendments prayed for, according to him, no prejudice would be caused to the respondents and the Arbitrator is not justified in determining the merits of the petitioners' claim at the stage of the amendment itself i.e., whether the petitioners are entitled to seek the enhanced compensation as prayed for in the arbitration original petitions and on the other hand, the Arbitrator, in the guise of deciding the amendment applications, appears to have decided the main arbitration original petitions itself by holding that their petitions are not maintainable under Section 3J of the National Highways Act, 1956, failing to consider the fact that Section 3J of the National Highways Act, 1956 had been declared as unconstitutional by the Punjab and Haryana High Court as well as the High Court of Karnataka and when the amendments sought for by the petitioners are inconsonance with the reliefs prayed for in the main arbitration original petitions and not completely alien to the same and the proposed amendments are necessary for the effective adjudication of the claims made in the main arbitration original petitions preferred by the petitioners and when the Arbitrator is empowered to amend the arbitration original petitions, as per the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 accordingly, prayed for the reversal of the impugned orders passed by the Arbitrator. 7. 7. Per contra, according to the respondents, it is stated that when the reliefs sought for by the petitioners in the main arbitration original petitions are not sustainable and furthermore, when the petitioners are entitled to obtain the award only as per the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956 and not as per the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, they would not be entitled to claim 30% solatium as well as the interest as per the National Highways Act, 1956 and accordingly, putforth that the Arbitrator, taking into consideration the abovesaid factors, rightly dismissed the amendment applications and therefore, prayed for the dismissal of the civil revision petitions. 8. Aggrieved over the award fixed by the competent Authority, namely, the first respondent, it is noted that the petitioners had moved the Arbitrator for the enhanced award amount by filing necessary arbitration original petitions as per law. No doubt, their arbitration original petitions had been challenged by the respondents by filing counters. 8. Aggrieved over the award fixed by the competent Authority, namely, the first respondent, it is noted that the petitioners had moved the Arbitrator for the enhanced award amount by filing necessary arbitration original petitions as per law. No doubt, their arbitration original petitions had been challenged by the respondents by filing counters. Be that as it may, pending the above said arbitration original petitions, when it is found that the petitioners had moved amendment applications to amend the arbitration original petitions, particularly, as regards the reliefs sought for in the arbitration original petitions for seeking the enhanced compensation from the date of the notification to the date of taking possession as per law and accordingly, also prayed for the aggregate interest amount, which according to the petitioners, is a statutory one, in my considered opinion, when as per the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Arbitrator is empowered to supplement the claim of the petitioners by amending the reliefs sought for in the arbitration original petitions and could discountenance the same only when there is delay in preferring the said amendment applications and when it is not the case of the respondents that there is a delay on the part of the petitioners in preferring the amendment applications and when the amendment sought for by the petitioners are found to be only in tune with the reliefs already sought for by them in the main arbitration original petitions and thereby, they had not changed the character of the main arbitration original petitions, by introducing any new facts, on the other hand, sought for the reliefs by way of the amendment, which according to them, could be statutorily enforced as per the decisions of the Apex Court, to meet the ends of justice, the Arbitrator should have endeavoured to entertain the amendment applications preferred by the petitioners and thereafter, should have proceeded to dispose of their arbitration original petitions based on the merits of the case. On the other hand, when it is noted that the Arbitrator has proceeded to dispose of the main arbitration original petitions itself, by determining that the petitioners are not entitled to seek 30% solatium and the interest amount, which according to him, are not provided under the National Highways Act, 1956 and only provided under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and determining that inasmuch as the lands of the petitioners had been acquired only as per the National Highways Act, 1956, they are not entitled to claim the aforesaid reliefs and resultantly, chose to dismiss the amendment applications, the impugned orders of the Arbitrator, are found to be not sustainable in the eyes of law. 9. 9. Moreover, considering the decisions of the Punjab and Haryana High Court relied upon by the petitioners' counsel rendered in C.W.P.11461 of 2005, dated 28.03.2008 and the decision of the Karnataka High Court in Lalita vs. Union of India, reported in AIR 2003 Karnataka 165, when it is noted that the abovesaid High Courts had struck down the Sections 3J and 3G of the National Highways Act, 1956, as arbitrary, irrational and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, insofar as they deny payment of solatium and interest and held that the landowners, who are compulsorily divested of their property under the impugned statute, would henceforth be entitled to solatium and interest as envisaged by the provisions of Sections 23 and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, accordingly, it is seen that when the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956 relied upon by the Arbitrator for discountenancing the reliefs sought for by the petitioners, by way of the amendments, are found to be struck down by the abovesaid High Courts and when it is not shown that any challenge had been made thereto by the respondents concerned to the Apex Court in the manner known to law and consequently, the persons, like, the petitioners, whose lands had been acquired under the National Highways Act, 1956, compulsorily, would be entitled to get solatium and interest as envisaged by the provisions of Sections 23 and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, in the light of the principles of law outlined in the abovecited decisions, and following the same, in my considered opinion, the Arbitrator should have entertained the amendment applications preferred by the petitioners and thereafter, should have endeavoured to dispose of the main arbitration original petitions taking into consideration the merits of the case putforth by either parties. 10. 10. Though it is contended by the counsel appearing for the respondents that the striking down of the abovesaid provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956, as unconstitutional, had been challenged in the Apex Court, however, with reference to the same, the counsel appearing for the respondents putforth that the Apex Court, taking into consideration the submissions made by the learned Solicitor General of India that solatium in terms of the impugned order of the High Court would be granted for the acquisition made under the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956, accordingly, as no further subsisting issues remained for consideration, it is stated that accordingly, the Apex-Court closed the special leave petition preferred in respect of the allied matters and accordingly, directed the respondents therein to pay the solatium as due in terms of the impugned orders along with interest thereon and the abovesaid determination of the Apex Court could be gathered from the decision of the Apex Court submitted by the counsel appearing for the respondents, dated 21.07.2016, rendered in Civil Appeal Nos.129-159 of 2014, in Union of India and another vs. T.Chakrapani and others. Therefore, even as per the decision relied upon by the counsel appearing for the respondents, when the Apex Court had also determined that even as regards the lands acquired under the National Highways Act, 1956, the solatium and interest could be sought for by the landowners, whose lands had been acquired under the abovesaid Act and furthermore, considering the position of law outlined by the Punjab and Haryana High Court and Karnataka High Court, as above noted, in all, it is found that when the amendments sought for by the petitioners are inconsistent with the reliefs already prayed for by them and only they seek to expand, elicit, elucidate and clarify the reliefs to which, they are entitled to as per law, in my considered opinion, following the abovecited decisions, accordingly, the impugned orders of the Arbitrator are liable to be set aside. 11. Accordingly, the impugned orders, dated 07.02.2009, passed in unnumbered I.A.Nos.....of 2008 in Arbitration O.P.Nos.5718, 5719 of 2008, 92777 & 92778 of 2007, by the District Collector/Arbitrator, Thoothukudi, in his proceedings in Na.Ka.n3/5718/08, n3/5719/07, n3/92777/07 and n3/92778/07, are set aside and the unnumbered amendment applications preferred by the petitioners in the Arbitration O.P.Nos.5718, 5719 of 2008, 92777 & 92778 of 2007, are hereby allowed. Resultantly, the civil revision petitions are allowed. No costs.