JUDGMENT 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and also the counsel appearing for respondents. 2. This MFA is filed against the order of rejection of Arbitration Suit of 27/2010 dtd. 30/11/2015, on the file of I Addl. District Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru. The factual matrix of the case is that the appellant is the owner of Sy.No.43/4 of Padukodi Village, Mangalore Taluk, which is subject of matter of acquisition for the purpose of widening of the existing National Highway into four lines and forwarded the same to respondent No.3 for acquisition of aforesaid land of the appellant along with other lands. In pursuance of the same the acquisition proceedings bearing No.NHAI/LA/SR/10/2005-06 dtd. 7/9/2006 initiated and issued a paper publication and called for the objections from the interested parties. By virtue of the said paper publication, the plaintiff filed the detailed objection before the 2nd respondent/Land Acquisition Officer. The Land Acquisition Officer has passed award dtd. 30/10/2007 by fixing the compensation amount. Aggrieved by the award passed by second respondent third respondent referred the matter to the Arbitration to the First respondent under Sec. .3(G)(5) of the National Highways Act 1956. Accordingly, first respondent issued enquiry notice to the appellant. The appellant not only appeared in pursuance of the notice of the first respondent but also filed detailed objections including application for spot inspection. The same was dismissed and hence the Arbitration Suit was filed and the same was also dismissed. Hence, the present appeal is filed. The main contention of the counsel is that the District Judge failed to notice that the first respondent has not decided the case as per reference for Arbitration and as per the provisions of National Highways Act. The Arbitrator has not considered the value of improvements, such as compound wall, gate, plastic sign board and damages cost due to severance of land, loss caused to non-formation of rain water channel as well as loss of business due to non-availability of sufficient parking facility. It is also contended that the District Judge did not consider the case of the appellant that he was not given sufficient opportunity both oral and documentary to support his case, which has resulted in serous miscarriage of justice. It is also contended that the District Judge did not consider the case of the appellant that he was not given sufficient opportunity both oral and documentary to support his case, which has resulted in serous miscarriage of justice. Learned counsel vehemently contends that the main contention of the appellant before the District Court was that the Arbitration has not given appropriate opportunity and the counsel requested for appointment of Court Commissioner and the same is also not considered. The District Court while considering the order passed by the arbitrator failed to take note of the said contention and improvement made by the appellant. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents submit that the area was acquired and arbitrator has also considered the case of the appellant herein and awarded a compensation for the acquired land at the rate of Rs.1, 40, 000.00 per cent with 9% interest. Counsel submits that the arbitrator even exceeded his limit, by considering the guidance value instead of average value and now the appellant cannot urge that an appropriate opportunity was not given to him. 4. Having heard the appellant's counsel and also the respondent's counsel, the very case of the appellant is that the arbitrator has not given an opportunity and the same ground is urged in A.S.No.27/2010. The District Court has taken note of the same and particularly in paragraph 31 with regard to the contention taken in the Arbitration Suit in paragraph 32 and 33, an observation is made that the Arbitrator has tried to strike a balance between the objects of Land Acquisition Act and the Provisions of Sec. 3G(7) of the National Highway Act. Thus the wisdom of the Arbitrator in adopting the guidance value fixed for the year 2010 cannot be said to be opposed to public policy. With regard to the other contention that no opportunity is given, in paragraph 34 the District Court has taken note of the fact that ample opportunities were granted to the plaintiff in Arbitration proceedings and then they did not file application for appointment of the Commissioner and what was lost by them was only compound wall with gate and the signboard. Counsel vehemently contends that they have filed an application for appointment of Commissioner and the said application is on the part of record of appellant. Counsel vehemently contends that they have filed an application for appointment of Commissioner and the said application is on the part of record of appellant. On query, made by this Court whether any such reference with making of such application before the concerned Arbitrator and there is no such entry in the ordersheet also. When such being the case, in the observations made by the District Court, I do not find any error. It is also important that the District Court also while considering the present suit, has taken note of the fact that the appellant has not placed any record to show that there was depletion in income on account of the absence of the parking place for their hotel. Counsel vehemently contends that on account of expanding the road, the value is decreased in view of no parking area. The same cannot be a ground since he has lost the parking area on account of acquisition. When such being the case, I do not find any error committed by the District Court in dismissing the suit filed against the award of the Arbitrator. The scope of Sec. 34 is also very limited while entertaining the Arbitration Suit. Hence, no merit in the appeal. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following order: ORDER The Miscellaneous First Appeal is dismissed.