JUDGMENT : SUNITA AGARWAL, C.J. 1. The instant appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has been filed by the Rajkot Municipal Corporation challenging the arbitral award dated 21.11.2021, amended award dated 21.03.2022 passed by the learned sole Arbitrator as well as the judgment and order dated 21.02.2023 passed by the learned Commercial Court, Rajkot in the proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short as the "Arbitration Act' 1996") in Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 2 of 2022. 2. The main ground of challenge to the arbitral award is that the learned Arbitrator went beyond the scope of the agreement and committed a gross error of law in holding that the contractor-respondent is entitled to additional amount for the additional constructions made by him. The contention is that the learned Arbitrator has erred in holding that the contractor-claimant has proved that the FSI of 3 was available on the entire plot comprising of Final Plots No. 64-A/SEWS and 64-C/Commercial Sale located at Raiyadhar, near Ramapir Chowki, Town Planning Scheme No.22 Raiya admeasuring 20231 sq. mtrs. and that the appellant, viz. the Corporation is not entitled to recover any amount paid towards the FSI from the claimant. 3. In addition to the above, the claimant was held entitled to payment of an amount of Rs.3,32,11,000/- adjusted by the respondent-appellant herein towards the cost of additional construction of 220 dwelling units. The arbitral Tribunal has further directed the appellant herein to return the cheques deposited by the claimant for a total sum of Rs. 2,89,88,251/- towards paid FSI charges for Plot B 2nd Part to the claimant. It was further held by the learned Arbitator that the appellant Corporation was not justified in demanding betterment charges in respect of the free sale land on the date when such charges were demanded and, therefore, is liable to refund the amount of Rs. 41,92,335/- and Rs.33,19,111/- paid by the claimant towards betterment charges. Thus, it was held that the claimant is entitled to payment of Rs.4,23,25,627.50 towards the cost of additional construction and for issuance of a CSR certificate for a sum of Rs.1,74,82,724/- for the year 2019-2020. 4. 41,92,335/- and Rs.33,19,111/- paid by the claimant towards betterment charges. Thus, it was held that the claimant is entitled to payment of Rs.4,23,25,627.50 towards the cost of additional construction and for issuance of a CSR certificate for a sum of Rs.1,74,82,724/- for the year 2019-2020. 4. Apart from the above, simple interest at the rate of 10% p.a. is to be paid on the amount of refund of paid FSI from the date when such amount was recovered/adjusted till the date of the award. The interest on refund of betterment charge is payable at the rate of 10% p.a. from the date of payment till the date of award. Interest on an amount of Rs.3,32,11,000/- at the rate of 10% p.a. adjusted towards cost of additional construction is payable from the date on which the dwelling units were handed over to the appellant Corporation till the date the amount was adjusted against paid FSI and interest on the balance amount of Rs.91,14,627.50 towards cost of additional compensation at the rate of 10% p.a. from the date of which the dwelling units were handed over to the respondent till the date of award has been accorded by the Tribunal. 5. The main ground of challenge to the arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act' 1996 was that the evidence furnished by the appellant Corporation, in defence were not appreciated. The learned Arbitrator has gone beyond the terms and conditions of the contract in payment of the additional amount towards additional construction. The interest awarded is penal and is illegal being awarded with an intention to give maximum benefit to the contractor/claimant. The award suffers from the vice of principles of natural justice, inasmuch as, the appellant Corporation has not been served with the notice and it was an ex parte award. 6. The learned Commercial Court, taking note of the provisions contained in Section 34 of the Arbitration Act' 1996, has held that the record indicated that the Corporation was served with the notice and remained present and contested the matter and sufficient opportunities were given to the Corporation. 6. The learned Commercial Court, taking note of the provisions contained in Section 34 of the Arbitration Act' 1996, has held that the record indicated that the Corporation was served with the notice and remained present and contested the matter and sufficient opportunities were given to the Corporation. The application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act' 1996 was filed beyond the period of three months from the date of passing of the amended award dated 21.03.2022, whereas the original award is dated 21.11.2021, the application under Section 34 , preferred on 19.11.2022, was, thus, held to be time barred and, thus, not maintainable. 7. It was held that even otherwise, under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act' 1996, the scope of interference is limited to the extent of the grounds stated in the section itself. The challenge to the award on the plea of wrong appreciation of evidence adduced before the learned Arbitrator was not entertainable, inasmuch as, the Court has no power to re-appreciate the evidence adduced by the Arbitrator and reach at a different conclusion. 8. Challenging these findings returned by the learned Commercial Court under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act' 1996, it was vehemently argued by the learned counsel appearing for the Corporation that the merits of the argument that the learned Arbitrator had gone beyond the terms and conditions of the contract has not been looked into. The learned Commercial Court has erred in ignoring this assertion of the appellant showing patent illegality in the award of the learned Arbitrator. In support of the said argument, it is submitted that the tender was floated in the month of January 2014, as per the Government policy for in-situ rehabilitation of slums situated on public land under the Public Private Partnership (PPP) under the Mukhyamantri Gruh Yojna, as per the Government Resolution dated 18.07.2013, the bid was invited for development of Integrated Group Housing Facility for Slum Rehabilitation Scheme on PPP mode. 9. As per the tender, the bidder was provided 220 dwelling units with minimum carpet area of 28 sq. mtrs. and 45 shops with minimum carpet area of 15 sq. mtrs. After acceptance of the bid, a Concession Agreement (Development Agreement) came to be executed on 07.05.2015, which incorporated tender conditions. 9. As per the tender, the bidder was provided 220 dwelling units with minimum carpet area of 28 sq. mtrs. and 45 shops with minimum carpet area of 15 sq. mtrs. After acceptance of the bid, a Concession Agreement (Development Agreement) came to be executed on 07.05.2015, which incorporated tender conditions. The contractor/respondent herein had executed the work without any demur for three years and at the end of the contract started raising issues for the first time in the month of March 2018. As per the claim of the contractor, they had constructed 20 dwelling units over and above 220 dwelling units, part of the contract, and further with additional construction of 8.88 sq. mtrs per dwelling unit as additional FSI, cost of land, betterment charges, etc. were incurred by him. 10. It is submitted that it was explained to the contractor that 20 units extra constructed by them were under their CSR activity and additional construction of 8.88 sq.mtrs. was as per their understanding with the slum dwellers. As the land belongs to the contractor, there was no question of claiming extra cost of the land. It was further argued that the contractor was not entitled to FSI of 3 for the free sale portion of the plot, however, the competent committee had granted paid FSI of 3 on the request of the contractor. The additional construction compensation paid to the contractor was required to be adjusted against the payable FSI. It was vehemently argued that FSI was available as per the tender condition and the governing provisions. 11. Lastly, as regards betterment charges, it was argued that the same was paid in Form-F as per the provisions of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 and the contracter paid the said amount without protest. 12. With these observations, it was vehemently argued that the learned Arbitrator has erred in holding otherwise and, thus, gone beyond the terms and conditions of the Concession Agreement, which incorporated the tender condition. The benefits granted under the Government order dated 15.04.2015 was not available to the contractor, inasmuch as, the said Government resolution, which provided for FSI 3 came into force after acceptance of tender condition. The Concession Agreement which was executed on 07.05.2015 will not automatically incorporate the provisions of the Government resolution dated 15.04.2015. 13. The benefits granted under the Government order dated 15.04.2015 was not available to the contractor, inasmuch as, the said Government resolution, which provided for FSI 3 came into force after acceptance of tender condition. The Concession Agreement which was executed on 07.05.2015 will not automatically incorporate the provisions of the Government resolution dated 15.04.2015. 13. Considering all these arguments, pertinent is to note that the learned Arbitrator recorded that before the Concession Agreement (Part A - Development Agreement) came to be executed between the parties on 07.05.2015, the Government resolution dated 15.04.2015 came into force, which modified the Government policy notified by the Government resolution dated 18.07.2013 by inserting clause 6.1.1 in the said policy. The claimant vide communication dated 16.03.2017 had insisted on the policy in clause 6.1.1 in the Government resolution dated 15.04.2015, whereby maximum FSI of 3 had been permitted for the development of slum rehabilitation and sought for FSI of 3 for free hold development. The request was, however, rejected on 19.04.2017. 14. Another letter dated 25.04.2018 was, thereafter, addressed insisting on clause 6.1.1 of the Government policy. It seems that the Urban Development Department has issued a resolution dated 19.07.2017 in the context of Slum Rehabilitation Policy of 2013 and it was stated that clause 6.1 of the Government resolution dated 18.07.2013 stood amended and be read as including the benefit that "after rehabilitation of slums for slum rehabilitation, for the balance land left for development by the developers, FSI of 3 shall be given". 15. By letter dated 20.07.2018, the Urban Development Department informed the contractors that as per the resolution dated 19.07.2017 of the department, the provisions of clause 6.1 of the policy of 2013 stood amended in the above noted manner. Lastly, a Deed of conveyance came to be executed between the parties on 15.10.2018, which incorporated the benefits to be granted to the developer under the amended clause 6.1 of the Government policy dated 15.04.2015 as clarified and incorporated vide resolution of the Urban Development Department dated 19.07.2017. 16. Lastly, a Deed of conveyance came to be executed between the parties on 15.10.2018, which incorporated the benefits to be granted to the developer under the amended clause 6.1 of the Government policy dated 15.04.2015 as clarified and incorporated vide resolution of the Urban Development Department dated 19.07.2017. 16. It seems that the dispute arose on account of vehement stand of the Municipal Commissioner, Rajkot Municipal Corporation as against the incentives granted to the developer under the Government resolution dated 15.04.2015 and the opinion drawn by the learned Arbitrator that the benefits of clause 6.1 came to be inserted in the policy of 2013 by the Government resolution dated 15.04.2015 and once the concerned department, viz. the Urban Development Department, has issued clarification in the shape of Resolution dated 19.07.2017, the claimant/contractor was justified in believing that it was entitled to FSI of 3 for the entire plot and cannot be held liable for not raising this issue immediately after the tender was awarded and the issue was rightly raised only after the respondent refused to grant such benefit. 17. Further, the Deed of conveyance, viz. the Sale Deed, which would form Part B of the Concession Agreement, came to be executed by and between the parties on 15.10.2018 whereby 16,338.825 sq. mtrs of land which remained open after construction for the in-situ rehabilitation of slums out of 20,050 sq. mtrs. land of Town Planning Scheme No.22(Raiya), Final Plots No. 64- A and 64-C of Rajkot came to be sold to the claimant. In the said deed, the parties agreed that the documents listed on paragraph A would form integral part of the deed. The list included various documents including the tender documents and the Concession Development Agreement dated 07.05.2015 and also the Government resolutions dated 18.07.2013 and 15.04.2015 containing the guidelines of Urban Development and Urban Housing Department in the matter of Planning, Regulation for Rehabilitation of Slums on Public Land under the PPP mode. 18. We, therefore, find it just and proper that the learned Arbitrator has concluded that in the Deed of Conveyance dated 05.10.2018, the Corporation has agreed that the resolution dated 15.04.2015, which provided for FSI of 3 for the entire land including the freehold land, shall form an integral part of the deed. 18. We, therefore, find it just and proper that the learned Arbitrator has concluded that in the Deed of Conveyance dated 05.10.2018, the Corporation has agreed that the resolution dated 15.04.2015, which provided for FSI of 3 for the entire land including the freehold land, shall form an integral part of the deed. The recital contained in paragraph 4 of the Deed of Conveyance has been noted by the learned Arbitrator to record that it refers to Gujarat Slum Rehabilitation Policy (PPP-2013) and other provisions of the State Government notification in that regard as mentioned therein as also the provisions mentioned in the tender documents and further that the contractor was granted the right to use FSI as per the tender documents and the policy mentioned above. 19. Thus, the learned Arbitrator has rightly concluded that in view of the statement in the Deed of Conveyance, which forms Part B of the Concession Agreement, the Government resolution dated 15.04.2015 forms an integral part of the deed and the claimant/contractor had been granted right to use FSI as per the tender document and the policy and other provisions of the State Government notifications in that regard, as mentioned in the deed, the appellant Corporation cannot deny the benefit thereof to the claimant. 20. This finding returned by the learned Arbitrator based on the appreciation of evidence on record cannot be interfered within the scope of Section 37 of the Arbitration Act' 1996, inasmuch as, it is settled that the scope of interference in the arbitral award by the Court under Section 37 is even more limited and cannot go beyond the grounds stated in Section 34 of the Arbitration Act' 1996. It is not permissible for the Court to hold that the conclusion drawn by the learned Arbitrator was not a possible conclusion with the standards of a reasonable man of ordinary prudence having knowledge of law. Since re-appreciation of evidence to arrive at a different conclusion from that drown by the learned Arbitrator is not permissible within the scope of Section 37 of the Arbitration Act' 1996, we do not find merit in the arguments of the learned Senior counsel for the appellant to assail the arbitral award and the order passed under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act' 1996. 21. 21. As regards the last argument on the findings of the learned Arbitrator with regard to levy of betterment charges, suffice it to note that the contributions under Section 79 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 were not chargeable at the time when the Deed of conveyance came to be executed, inasmuch as, such contribution can be left on the owner of a plot in the final scheme. At the stage when the land was transferred to the claimant contractor, only the Preliminary Town Planning Scheme was enforced and the Final Town planning scheme was not yet sanctioned. Betterment charges were not encumbrance on the freehold land sold under the Deed of Conveyance, inasmuch as, liability to pay the same had not been crystallised at the time when the Deed of conveyance was executed 22. As per the recital of the Conveyance Deed, the claimant was required to pay of all rates, charges, etc. of every description to the Rajkot Municipal Corporation, the State Government "now payable or hereinafter to become payable". It was noted by the learned Arbitrator that the Final Town planning scheme had not come into effect at the time or on the date of execution of the conveyance deed and, therefore, the betterment charges could not have been recovered as it had not become payable by that time when the matter was at the stage of preliminary town planning scheme. It was, thus, held that no betterment charges could have been levied at the stage of preliminary town planning scheme and further, final town planning scheme was sanctioned on 31.12.2010 and, as such, recovery of betterment charges prior to the said date was not permissible. 23. Under the Town Planning Scheme, upon the preliminary town planning scheme being sanctioned, an estimate of the contribution is calculated in Form F as prescribed under Rule 21 of the Town Planning Rules framed under the Town Planning Act and the practice of levying betterment charges at the time of granting building permission/rajachitthi based on some order of the Municipal Commissioner dated 14.03.2001 was not permissible. We do not find any patent illegality in the said conclusion drawn by the learned Arbitrator. 24. We do not find any patent illegality in the said conclusion drawn by the learned Arbitrator. 24. Taking note of Section 87 of the Town Planning Act, which provides that the net amount paid by the owner of the plot included in the final scheme may at the option of the contributor be paid in lumpsum or in annual installment not exceeding ten, the recovery of contribution/betterment charges, thus, can be in terms of Section 87 of the Town Planning Act, where the contributor has even an option to opt for payment by way of annual installments. The recovery of betterment charges as a pre-condition for grant of development permission (rajachitthi), thus, is in contravention to Section 87 of the Town Planning Act which results in deprivation of the owner of a plot of the statutory rights granted thereunder. 25. Insofar as the issue pertaining to the cost of additional construction of 8.88 sq. mtrs., suffice it to note that under the Concession Agreement, each house covering an area of 28 sq. mtrs. was to be constructed for slum dwellers, however on the objection of the slum dwellers, the area of each house was increased to 36.19 sq. mtrs., which had resulted in additional cost of construction for 8.88 sq. mtrs. for each dwelling unit, which amount was calculated to the tune of Rs. 3,32,11,000/- towards additional cost of construction of 220 dwelling units, and cannot be denied to the contractor. 26. Lastly, the directions given by the learned Arbitrator for issuance of CSR (Corporate Social Responsibility) certificate for a sum of Rs. 1,74,82,724/- for the year 2019-2020, suffice it to note that in addition to the terms of the tender condition, the contractor had constructed 20 units in addition to 220 dwelling units as was agreed upon under the concession agreement with the Corporation. The contractor has agreed to make the said construction under the CSR and the only indulgence granted by the learned Arbitrator is to issue the CSR certificate for the same expenses incurred by the contractor for the year 2019-2020, which cannot be said to be illegal or unreasonable by any stretch of imagination. 27. The contractor has agreed to make the said construction under the CSR and the only indulgence granted by the learned Arbitrator is to issue the CSR certificate for the same expenses incurred by the contractor for the year 2019-2020, which cannot be said to be illegal or unreasonable by any stretch of imagination. 27. For the interest at the rate of 10% p.a. awarded by the learned Arbitrator, no plausible objection could be raised and moreover, the award cannot be said to suffer from any patent illegality, which would require interference within the scope of Section 37 of the Arbitration Act' 1996. Further, this Court has no jurisdiction to modify the arbitral award. 28. For the aforesaid, the appeal is found to be devoid of merits and, hence, dismissed. No order as to costs.