JUDGMENT A.H. Saikia, J. 1. Heard Mr. MZ Ahmed, learned Sr. Counsel assisted by Mrs. B. Dutta, learned Counsel for the petitioner in all these 3 writ petitions. 2. Mr. BJ Ghosh is heard on behalf of the State respondents. 3. Also heard Mr. PC Barpujari, Mr. SK Kejriwal and Mr. DK Das, learned Counsel representing the respondent No. 2, 3 and 3 in W.P.(C) Nos. 1978/01, 1980/01 and331/04 respectively. 4. Since all these writ petitions carry the common question of law based on almost identical and similar question of facts, the same are heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. 5. The writ petitioner, the Power Grid Corporation of India (for short, 'the Corporation') in W.P.(C) No. 1978/01, has challenged the judgment and order dated 22.12.2000 passed by the learned District Judge, Hailakandi in Misc. Case No. 139/99 in which the application preferred by the Respondent No. 2 under Sections 10 and 16 of the India Telegraph Act, 1885 (for short, 'the Act') read with Section 42 of the Electricity Act, 1948 seeking enhancement of the award of compensation of Rs. 1,31,833.00 awarded by the learned Collector against the petitioner for causing damages to the various agricultural items of the respondent No. 2's homestead land with fruit-bearing trees thereupon on being used by the petitioner while drawing their 132 K.V. transmission line from Badarpur to Bhairabi through the land of the petitioner, was allowed, after hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, awarding a total compensation to the tune of Rs. 12,45,965.00. Against the said award, this writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner. 6. In W.P. (C) No. 1980/2001, the petitioner-Corporation, while drawing their transmission line as mentioned above, caused damages to the tea bushes of the respondent No. 3 tea garden for which initially, in terms of the agreement arrived at between the parties, the petitioner offered a cheque of Rs. 48,920.00 as compensation to the respondent No. 3 calculated by the Deputy Commissioner, Hailakandi. However, the respondent No. 3 had returned the same alleging that the rates fixed for surface damage compensation were not acceptable. Rather, the respondent No. 3 raised a claim to the tune of Rs. 6,97,616.00 and the same was brought to the notice of the learned Addl. Deputy Commissioner-cum-Collector, Hailakandi with a prayer for releasing the enhanced amount. 7. However, the respondent No. 3 had returned the same alleging that the rates fixed for surface damage compensation were not acceptable. Rather, the respondent No. 3 raised a claim to the tune of Rs. 6,97,616.00 and the same was brought to the notice of the learned Addl. Deputy Commissioner-cum-Collector, Hailakandi with a prayer for releasing the enhanced amount. 7. The said competent Officer by his order dated 26.02.99, after taking into account the fact situation in its entirety and also upon hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, came to the finding that the respondent No. 3 was entitled to enhancement and accordingly determined an amount of Rs. 3,88, 269.00, Rs. 2,98,669.00 as compensation for 3405 Nos. of tea bushes plus Rs. 98.600.00 as additional compensation at the rate of 30% as per Section 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act as compensation/damages payable by the petitioner. 8. Being aggrieved by the enhanced compensation as mentioned above, by order dated 26.02.99, the petitioner herein moved an application under Section 16(3) read with Section 10(d) of the Act before the learned District Judge, Hailakandi through Misc. Case No. 15/2000 alleging that the award so fixed as damages was exaggerated and inflated and not permissible under the law, more particularly due to the fact that the procedure of Land Acquisition Act, 1890 (for short, 'the Acquisition Act') adopted by the Court below cannot be applied in the instant case because compensation has to be computed under the Act, being the legal foundation of the entire proceeding. 9. The learned District Judge after considering all the aspects and also upon examination of the witnesses so adduced on behalf of the parties, did not find any illegality or irregularity and or arbitrariness in fixing the enhanced compensation as noted above and accordingly dismissed the Misc. case by the Impugned order dated 22.12.2000 affirming the findings of the addl. Deputy Commissioner, Hailakandi. 10. In arriving at the conclusion to reject the contentions of the petitioner against the enhancement of compensation amount, the learned Judge observed that the petitioner was estopped by its own act of agreeing before the Collector to pay the reassessed value, i.e. enhanced compensation award and further that since Section 16(d) of the Act was silent as to how compensation was to be assessed, the invocation of Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act became expedient. 11. 11. So far as W.P.(C) No. 331/2004 is concerned, the respondent No. 3 herein, being similarly situated with the respondents in the above mentioned two cases, having suffered damages by felling of the Rubber trees while drawing the petitioner's transmission line as mentioned above, though compensation was given for latex, claimed compensation of Rs. 2,58,632.00 for felled trees by filing Misc. (Ors) No. 104/2000 before the learned District Judge, Cachar at Silchar. The petitioner, being aggrieved by such claim of the respondent No. 3 contested the Misc. case contending that such claim was not tenable because the petitioner was not entitled to get damages separately for the felled trees as payment made for latex also included the compensation for those felled trees. 12. However, the learned Judge after taking into consideration of the entire facts and after appreciation of the evidence adduced by both the parties as well as also upon hearing the learned Counsel representing the parties, by his order dated 06.11.03, came to the findings that apart from the damages of latex value, the respondent No. 3 was also entitled to damages for felling of rubber trees and accordingly compensation was awarded separately to the tune of Rs. 2,58,632.00. 13. An ordinary reading of the factual matrix as projected in all these writ petitions above explicitly goes to show that basically the final decisions of the Court of facts below have been assailed herein. However, the main ground of attack of all these three impugned judgments is that the procedure of the Acquisition Act was not at all applicable in these instant cases because all these cases for compensation are purely governed by the Act and as such the amount of compensation needs to be calculated under the Act. 14. Mr. M.Z. Ahmed, learned Sr. counsel has forcefully argued that though no specific and clear provision has been laid down in the Act for computation of the damages as mentioned above, the authority as well as the learned Court below ought not have adopted the procedure laid down under the Acquisition Act which has nothing to do with the Act, being a separate and independent enactment. According to him it is permissible to apply the Acquisition Act only when the petitioner concedes to such application. According to him it is permissible to apply the Acquisition Act only when the petitioner concedes to such application. In the instant case, at no point of time, the petitioner has ever craved for application of the Acquisition Act for determination of compensation. 15. It transpires on close scrutiny of material made available in the case at hand, that though there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner ever accepted the application of the procedure of the Acquisition Act but by their own admission they are bound to accept the invocation of the procedure of the Acquisition Act that has been adopted by the Court below for guidance in absence of any specific provision under the Act for computation any compensation. 16. It would be expedient to refer to the initial permission obtained from the competent authority by the petitioner. On 07.02.97 the Deputy Commissioner, Hailakandi (Annexure-1 to the W.P.(C) No. 1980/01) allowed the petitioner to construct 132 K.V. transmission lines from Badarpur to Aizawl through Hailakandi District by entering into the land of the pattadars with further observations that any individual pattadar whose properties may suffer any damage consequent thereto may intimate the full details thereof immediately to the Deputy Commissioner, Hailakandi for the purpose of assessing compensation, if any. 17. Having accepted such condition, the petitioner laid down the transmission lines through the lands of the respondents above mentioned causing damages to the extent as indicated above. 18. That apart, it is pertinent to note that initially having accepted such determination of the compensation by the Revenue authority, by adoption of the Acquisition Act, the petitioner accepted the amount of damages as Rs. 46,920/- which was handed over to the respondent No. 3 in W.P.(C) No. 1980/2001 by cheque. Surprisingly, now they have raised the question as regards applicability of the Acquisition Act only when the respondent No. 3 has claimed an enhancement of the award. This goes to show that during the entire period, the petitioner had all along accepted the procedure of Acquisition Act so adopted by the Collector concerned and there was no objection whatsoever any point of time during initial assessment. 19. The Apex Court in a case of K.G. Padmanbha Prabhu v. Kerala State Electricuty Board and Ors. This goes to show that during the entire period, the petitioner had all along accepted the procedure of Acquisition Act so adopted by the Collector concerned and there was no objection whatsoever any point of time during initial assessment. 19. The Apex Court in a case of K.G. Padmanbha Prabhu v. Kerala State Electricuty Board and Ors. reported in AIR 1998 SC 410 in paragraph 8 has categorically held that it would clearly indicate that if any dispute arises between the parties concerning the sufficiency of compensation, they are entitled to lay the claim before the District Court and the District Court required to determine the compensation since the procedure prescribed under manual of the Land Acquisition was adopted by the Electricity Board and the appellant has rightly availed of the procedure as indicated in the petition itself. 20. In view of what has been discussed and observed hereinabove and since the petitioner has challenged the judgments and orders mentioned above passed by the Court of facts, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Court below upon conscientious analysis of the factual matrix of each case and after proper appreciation of the evidence so adduced by the parties including material available on records, arrived at the findings of enhancement of the compensation by passing well-reasoned judgments and as such this Court finds no illegality and/or any jurisdictional error calling for interference with the same. 21. Accordingly, all these writ petitions stands dismissed. Interim orders, if any are hereby vacated. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.