Judgment :- Radhakrishnan, J. The question that is posed for consideration in this case is whether the Deputy Chief Engineer, K.S.E.B. can interfere with the powers conferred on the Deputy Tahsildar by the Manual of Instructions issued by the Board so as to fix the compensation under section 10(d) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. 2. Petitioners are owners in possession of 1.40 acres of property, which is mainly a coconut garden. Kerala State Electricity Board took steps to draw the Lower Periyar – Thrissur 220 KV double circle lines through Petitioner’s property and by order dated 7-11-1991 third respondent informed the petitioners that trees numbering 138 to 284 which were mainly coconut trees and pepper-vines are liable to be cut and removed. Third respondent Deputy Tahsildar (LA), K.S.E.B. also prepared land acquisition case 231 of 1992. On the basis of Ext.P.1 mahazar, third respondent cut and removed the trees. Third respondent passed an award for payment of an amount of Rs.4,44,810/-, which was approved by the Deputy Collector (LA), K.S.E. Board, Trivandrum. 3. Petitioners were later served with an order dated 28-5-1994 issued by the Deputy Chief Engineer stating that the amount awarded by the Deputy Tahsildar was highly excessive and pointed out that the committee constituted for review of such cases vide order dated 26-5-1994 made enquiries in detail and verified the DVS and recommended that the maximum amount of compensation payable should be Rs.3,02,906/- only. Further, it was also ordered that the maximum amount that could be payable in LA.No.231 of 1992 is only Rs.1,82,500/-. Direction was accordingly given to the Deputy Tahsildar (LA) for KSEB for disbursement of that amount. 4. Petitioners are aggrieved by the said order and has approached this Court. Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the Deputy Chief Engineer was not justified in going against the Manual of Instructions issued by the Kerala State Electricity Board by which power has been specifically conferred on the Deputy Tahsildar to pass an award. Counsel submitted that it is an award under section 10(d) of the Telegraph Act read with Manual of Instructions and the only remedy open to the Board, if aggrieved by the award, is to make an application under Section 16(3) of the Telegraph Act to the District Judge within whose jurisdiction the property is situated. Counsel submitted that it is an award under section 10(d) of the Telegraph Act read with Manual of Instructions and the only remedy open to the Board, if aggrieved by the award, is to make an application under Section 16(3) of the Telegraph Act to the District Judge within whose jurisdiction the property is situated. Counsel submitted the Deputy Chief Engineer of the Board has no jurisdiction to interfere with the award passed by the Deputy Tahsildar. Counsel appearing for the Board contended that the amount awarded by the Deputy Tahsildar was excessive and taking into account all relevant aspects of the matter the committee constituted vide order dt.26-5-1994 reviewed the award passed by the Dy. Tahsildar which was approved by the Special Deputy Collector (LA), K.S.E. Board. 5. The land required by the K.S.E. Board for various projects, substations, quarters etc. are acquired according to the provisions in the Kerala Land Acquisition Act and the Rules framed thereunder. The provisions in the Indian Electricity Act 1910, Electricity (Supply) Act 1948 and Indian Telegraphs Act, 1885 are being invoked to fix compensation and also for settlement of other issues. Part III of the Indian Telegraph Act deals with the power to place telegraph lines and posts. The relevant provision for our purpose is section 10(d), which is extracted below: “10. Power for telegraph authority to place and maintain telegraph lines and posts The telegraph authority may, from time to time, place and maintain a telegraph line under, over, along, or across, and posts in or upon, any immovable property provided that – (a) to (c) ……… (d) in the exercise of the powers conferred by this section, the telegraph authority shall do as little damage as possible, and when it has exercised those powers in respect of any property other than that referred to in clause (c), shall pay full compensation to all persons interested for any damage sustained by them by reason of the exercise of those powers.” In order to give effect to the land acquisition and payment of compensation for trees cut etc. The Kerala State Electricity Board has framed Manual of Instructions. Manual was prepared by the Board vide resolution dated 1-7-1972. Part I of the Manual deals with Land Acquisition and Part II deals with compensation for trees etc. The Kerala State Electricity Board has framed Manual of Instructions. Manual was prepared by the Board vide resolution dated 1-7-1972. Part I of the Manual deals with Land Acquisition and Part II deals with compensation for trees etc. Paragraph 13 of the Manual deals with marking of trees and paragraph 14 deals with preparation of mahazar and verification. Paragraph 13 stipulates that trees proposed to be cut shall be numbered by the Asst. Engineer’s Staff and he should arrange for service of the original notice on the owner and obtain his acknowledgement in the duplicate copy which will be forwarded to the Deputy Tahsildar. Paragraph 14 of the Manual provides for preparation of a mahazar showing full details including age and productive capacity of the trees and got attested by two witnesses. Paragraph 15 deals with estimation of yield and paragraph 17 requires preparation of valuation statement. Award enquiry has to be conducted by the Deputy Tahsildar as per paragraph 32 of the Manual and the notice of award enquiry shall be served on the owner of the trees in the form in Appendix III. Paragraph 33 authorizes the Deputy Tahsildar to pass award. The said paragraph is extracted below for easy reference. “Award will be passed by the Deputy Tahsildar after award enquiry. The finalization of the valuation statement and passing of award will be completed within one month from the date of receipt of cut certificate by the Deputy Tahsildar. The award statement will then be forwarded to the Deputy Collector in duplicate with copies of mahazars and cut certificate.” The award statements forwarded by the Deputy Tahsildar will be checked by the Deputy Collector as per paragraph 34 of the Manual. One copy of the scrutinized valuation statement will be forwarded to the Executive Engineer concerned for providing funds as per the valuation statement to the credit of the Deputy Tahsildars concerned for effecting payment to parties. Paragraph 35 of the Manual deals with payment of compensation. The date and place fixed for the disbursement of the compensation shall be intimated to the person entitled to receive the same in the form in Appendix IV. Payment will be effected by the Deputy Tahsildar by issuing cheques for amount of Rs.20/and above and in cash for sums less than Rs.20/-. Above are the detailed Manual of Instructions issued by the Board vide its resolution dated 1-7-1972. 6. Payment will be effected by the Deputy Tahsildar by issuing cheques for amount of Rs.20/and above and in cash for sums less than Rs.20/-. Above are the detailed Manual of Instructions issued by the Board vide its resolution dated 1-7-1972. 6. Question is whether the Deputy Chief Engineer could interfere with the powers conferred on the Deputy Tahsildar by the said Manual. We are of the view, when Board issues a Manual of Instructions, the same can be modified, varied or cancelled only by the Board by a resolution. Deputy Chief Engineer has no power to interfere with the Manual of Instructions issued by the Board. Manual of Instructions issued by the Board specifically confers power on the Deputy Tahsildar (LA) to pass an award. Deputy Chief Engineer cannot sit in judgment over that award or modify it. It is trite law that a circular issued by the Board binds the authorities. Reference may be made to the decisions of the apex court in Collector of Central Excise v. Usha Martin Industries (1998) 111 STC 254, Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Indra Industries (2001) 122 STC 100 and Collector of Central Excise v. Dhiren Chemical Industries (2002) 126 STC 122 and also a Full Bench decision of this Court in Kurian Abraham Pvt. Limited v. Assistant Commissioner (Assmt.) II, Special Circle, Kottayam, (2004) 137 STC 237. 7. We may in this connection refer to the decision of the Apex Court in K.G. Padmanbha Prabhu v. Kerala State Electricity Board, (1997) 6 SCC 505 wherein the apex court has noticed that the Board has vide resolution dated 1-7-1972 decided to follow the procedure provided in the Land Acquisition Act and Manual for determination of the compensation for trees. We are of the view when once the manual has been issued to that effect, unless and until it is varied by the Board itself the Deputy Chief Engineer and other subordinate officers are bound to follow that procedure. In our view, Deputy Tahsildar (LA) has exercised jurisdiction strictly on the basis of the manual and the Deputy Chief Engineer has no jurisdiction to sit in judgment over the award passed by the Deputy Tahsildar. In our view, Deputy Tahsildar (LA) has exercised jurisdiction strictly on the basis of the manual and the Deputy Chief Engineer has no jurisdiction to sit in judgment over the award passed by the Deputy Tahsildar. Only remedy available to the Board against the award passed by the Deputy Tahsildar is to prefer an application before the District Judge within whose jurisdiction the property is situated under section 16(3) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. The same was not done in this case. 8. Under such circumstance we are inclined to allow this appeal and set aside the judgment of the learned single Judge. So also the proceedings of the Deputy Chief Engineer dated 28-5-1994. Consequently, the award passed by the third respondent would stand revived. Board would take steps to disburse the balance amount as per the award within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case petitioners are entitled to get 6% interest on the amount awarded by the third respondent till payment.