WA 433/2006 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY Heard Mr. M.Z. Ahmed, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant in the 3 Writ Appeals filed by the Power Grid Corporation of India (hereinafter referre d to as the ’Corporation’). The contesting landowners have been arrayed as priva te respondents in all the Writ Appeals and they are represented in Court by lear ned Counsels Mr. P.C. Barpujari, Mr. S.K. Kejriwal and Mr. D.K. Das respectively . 2. These cases arise out of claims made by the landowners for enhancement o f compensation for the damage caused in their lands by laying of 132 KVA High Te nsion (HT) lines by the appellant the Power Grid Corporation of India. The lando wners not being satisfied with the compensation assessed by the Revenue Authorit y, applied for additional compensation by applying, inter alia, under Section 1 6(3) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (hereinafter referred to as the Telegr aph Act ). 3. In case of landowner Md. Haidar Hussain Laskar (respondent No.3 in W.A. 433 of 2006), additional compensation for Rs.2,58,632/- was allowed by the learn ed District Judge, Cachar by his order dated 6.11.2003. For landowner Azizur Rahman Laskar (respondent No.3 in W.A. 436 of 2006) , the learned District Judge by his order dated 22.12.2000 approved additional c ompensation of Rs.11,14,132/-. In so far as the 3rd landowner Manipur Tea Estate (respondent No.3 in W .A. 437 of 2006) is concerned, apart from additional compensation of Rs. 2,98,66 9/- for damage to tea bushes, a further sum of Rs.89,600/-by way of solatium @ 3 0% was also approved by the learned District Judge in his order dated 22.12.2000 . 4. The Power Grid Corporation being aggrieved, challenged the orders of the learned District Judge by filing 3 separate petitions i.e. W.P.(C) 331/04, W.P. (C) 1978/01 and W.P.(C) 1980/01 respectively. 5. By the common impugned judgment and order dated 8.6.06, the learned Sing le Judge refused to entertain the writ petitions on the ground that enhancement of compensation granted by the Revenue Authorities have been affirmed by the lea rned District Judge, by consideration of the relevant materials on record and th ere is no basis for interfering with the said enhancement ordered in favour of t he land owners. 6. Arguing the Writ Appeals, Mr. M.Z. Ahmed, learned senior counsel at the very outset makes it clear that the Power Grid Corporations does not challenge t he enhanced compensation granted to the land owners in view of the recent decisi ons of the Apex Court in Kerala State Electricity Board vs. Livisha reported in (2007) 6 SCC 792 and Kerala State Electricity Board vs. C.P. Sivasankara Menon reported in (2008) 11 SCC 382 holding that the provisions of the Land Acquisi tion Act, 1894, would not be foreign to a determination of compensation under th e Telegraph Act. The above, appears to be the principal ground on which the enha nced compensation was challenged in the appeals. However learned counsel submits that the Revenue Authorities and the learned District Judge were not justified in granting additional amount by way of solatium @ 30%, by applying Section 23(2 ) of the L.A. Act in as much as, there has been no acquisition of the lands. Mr. Ahmed submits that the provisions of Section 23(2) of L.A. Act cannot be applie d and no solatium can be granted as there is no acquisition of the lands in this case and the ownership of the lands continue to vest on the landowners. 7. In view of the above submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant , as solatium is not an issue in W.A. 433 of 2006 and W.A. 436 of 2006, we need not deal with these 2 Appeals as enhancement of compensation is conceded and is not challenged by the Power Grid Corporation. These 2 Writ Appeals are disposed of accordingly. 8. That takes us to Writ Appeal 437/06 where the learned District Judge by his order dated 22.12.2000 in Misc. Case No. 15/2000 has held that since Sectio n 16(d) of the Telegraph Act is silent as to how compensation is to be assessed, invocation of Section 23 of the L.A. Act for awarding solatium is justified. 9. A look at the provisions of Section 23(2) of the L.A. Act ex facie indic ates that the provisions thereof is applicable for granting solatium on the comp ensation payable for acquisition of land under the L.A. Act. Sub-Section (2) of the Section 23 provides that the Court shall in every such case, award 30% of t he market value of the acquired land as solatium, in consideration of the compul sory nature of the land acquisition. 10. While recourse to the principles under the L.A. Act for determining the amount of compensation payable for the land damages suffered by laying of High T ension Lines by the authorities may be justified, the provisions of the L.A. Act for payment of solatium cannot, in our view, have application in cases where no acquisition of land has taken place. In the instant case, ownership of the lands in question continue to vest on the Manipur Tea Estate and there is no change of ownership of the lands over which High Tension lines have been laid. 11. In the above circumstances, this Court finds it difficult to agree with the conclusion reached by the learned District Judge that payment of solatium un der Section 23(2) of the L.A. Act is justified for Manipur Tea Estate merely bec ause the Telegraph Act is silent as to how compensation for damages to land is t o be assessed. 12. In view of the above discussion, we partially allow W.A. 437 of 2006 by declaring that solatium under Section 23(2) of the L.A. Act could not have be en granted to Manipur Tea Estate and accordingly we hold that the landowner is n ot entitled to any solatium on the assessed compensation. However they are entit led to the additional compensation for damage as granted under the provisions of Telegraph Act. 13. In so far Cross Appeal 2 of 2007 filed by Manipur Tea Estate which is pr essed for a claim of interest on the compensation, we find that the landowner di d not claim interest at any earlier stage. They did not challenge the orders of the Revenue Authorities or the learned District Judge where no interest was gran ted. Now through a Cross Appeal in the writ proceeding initiated by the Power Gr id Corporation, they, for the first time have put up a claim for interest. Consi dered in this backdrop, we find no reason to entertain this Cross Appeal of one of the landowners and the same is accordingly dismissed. 14. All the Appeals are disposed of in light of above without any order on c ost.