Q. With reference to Arbitration Act and Land Acquistion in India, consider the following statements.
1. The government can acquire land for highways without a fair mechanism for compensation.
2. If the landowner is dissatisfied with the compensation, he can seek reconsideration by an Arbitrator.
3. Under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, the courts can modify the award or increase the compensation.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

[A] 1 and 2 only

[B] 2 and 3 only

[C] 1 and 3 only

[D] 1, 2 and 3

Answer: A
Notes:

In the recent Project Director, NHAI vs M Hakeem case, the SC ruled that the government can acquire land for highways without a fair mechanism for compensation. (Statement 1 is correct) 

National Highways Act, 1956 (amended 1997): Under it, government servants fix the compensation while acquiring the land. If the landowner is dissatisfied with the compensation, he can seek reconsideration. (Statement 2 is correct) 

This is a remedy in section 34 of the Arbitration Act. But this provides only limited appeal in a court of law. Under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, the courts cannot modify the award or increase the compensation itself. It can either set aside the award or leave it to be re-decided by the arbitrator. (Statement 3 is incorrect) 

Source:A very consequential Supreme Court ruling: When govt values land unjustly, landowners cannot seek full remedy in lower courts