1 (1)S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.19/2010 (2)S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.20/2010 (3)S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.21/2010 (4)S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.22/2010 (5)S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.23/2010 (6)S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.24/2010 (7)S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.25/2010 (8)S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.26/2010 (9)S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.27/2010 (10)S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.28/2010 (11)S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.29/2010 Date of Judgment :: 5th February, 2010 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr. Sandeep Saruparia, for the appellant. Mr. MS Singhvi, for the respondents. .... These misc. appeals as per provisions of Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1996”) are preferred against the order dated 31.10.2009 passed by learned District Judge, Chittorgarh, rejecting the applications preferred by the present appellant as per provisions of Section 34 of the Act of 1996 and also confirmed the award dated 27.10.2008, passed by the Arbitrator (Collector), Chittorgarh. The factual matrix necessary to be noticed is that on 16.7.2003 a notification as per provisions 2 of Section 3A of the National Highways Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1956”) was published for acquiring certain land and the Additional District Collector, Chittorgarh was appointed as the competent authority. After holding regular proceedings the competent authority passed an award on 10.5.2005 determining compensation as per provisions of Section 3G(i) and (ii). While doing so, the competent authority held that the land acquired was situated in an undeveloped commercial and industrial area, thus, awarded compensation @ Rs.150/- per sq. ft. The respondents persons interested in lands, being aggrieved by the award aforesaid, preferred applications before the Arbitrator as per provisions of Section 3G(5) of the Act of 1956 and that came to be accepted under the order dated 27.10.2008. While accepting the applications learned Arbitrator held that the land in question is “a land near to Aabadi land” being at the distance of 430 meters, thus, is liable to determination of compensation @ Rs.300/- per sq. ft. The applications preferred under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 to challenge the order dated 27.10.2008 came to be rejected by learned District Judge, hence the present appeals are preferred. The challenge to the orders impugned is based on following grounds:- 3 (1)the applications under Section 3G(5) of the Act of 1956 can be maintained if the amount determined by the competent authority under sub-section(1) or sub- section(2) of Section 3G is not acceptable to either of the parties and in the present cases the amount awarded was accepted by the persons interested in the land, thus, the Arbitrator erred while entertaining the applications under Section 3G(5); and (2)the Arbitrator called upon a factual report relating to the distance of the land from Tehsildar Gangrar and relied upon that without having authority to do so. This Court under the order dated 13.1.2010 called for the original record from the competent authority, accordingly the same is available for perusal. On examination of record, I found that the persons interested in land withdrew the awarded compensation under protest. It is well settled that once the compensation awarded is drawn under protest then it cannot be treated as an accepted award. As such, the first contention of counsel for the appellant is having no merit. So far as second argument is concerned, it is pertinent to note that the distance of the land was 4 measured by the Tehsildar in presence of the representatives of appellant and no objection regarding calling of such factual report was ever objected before the Arbitrator. The Arbitrator made a specific order for obtaining such report and the parties acted upon that. After participating in process of determination of distance, now it is highly unjust to object the same while pressing an appeal under Section 37 of the Act of 1996. For the reasons mentioned above, I am not inclined to interfere with the orders impugned while exercising powers under Section 37 of the Act of 1996, hence these appeals are dismissed. ( GOVIND MATHUR ),J. kkm/ps.