JUDGMENT H. Baruah, J. 1. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, the petitioners have sought for setting aside and quashing of the judgment and order dated 22-3-2006 passed in Money Suit No. 8 of 2002 and judgment and order dated 3-9-2008 passed in RFA No. 5 of 2006 passed by the Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner, Aizawl and Additional District Magistrate (J) respectively. 2. Respondent Nos. 1 to 9 are the owners of the lands at Durtlang and the petitioners herein after serving notice under Sections 10 to 19 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 with a promise to make payment of compensation for all damages to be duly assessed by the competent authority installed 132 KV line by causing damage to crops and various fruit bearing trees belonging to the respondents. Felled trees damages crops and fruit bearing trees planted in the lands in the respondents all were surveyed by the Deputy Commissioner, Aizawl and accordingly assessed the compensation for such damages and submitted to the petitioners herein for payment vide letter No. F. 14011/6/97-DC(A)/217 dated 4.1.2000. In spite of assessment of compensation for the damages to the crops and the fruit bearing trees and other valuable saplings, the petitioners sat tight over the matter without disbursing the compensation to the respondents, which prompted the respondents to serve notice through their advocate on 11.2.2002. Some amount of compensation, however, after service of the notice was deposited with the respondent No. 10 for disbursement to the respondent Nos. 1 to 9. Despite service of various notices the petitioners did not care to deposit the balance amount with the respondent No. 10. Meanwhile, the respondent No. 10 herein without serving any notice whatsoever to the respondent Nos. 1 to 9, the land owners and giving any reasonable opportunity of being heard to them illegally revised the compensation as already assessed on account of damage to crops, felling of fruit bearing and other valuable trees by adopting a new rate called "upset price". It is claimed that such revision of compensation by not issuing any notice whatsoever to the land owners, the respondent Nos. 1 to 9 herein is illegal and not sustainable under the law. For non-payment of the balance compensation assessed by the Deputy Commissioner, the respondent No. 10 communicated vide letter dated 4th Jaunary, 2000, the respondent Nos. It is claimed that such revision of compensation by not issuing any notice whatsoever to the land owners, the respondent Nos. 1 to 9 herein is illegal and not sustainable under the law. For non-payment of the balance compensation assessed by the Deputy Commissioner, the respondent No. 10 communicated vide letter dated 4th Jaunary, 2000, the respondent Nos. 1 to 9 as plaintiffs filed a Money Suit No. 8 of 2002 before the Court of Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner, Aizawl for a money decree as assessed by the respondent No. 10 herein communicated vide letter dated 4-1-2000 with interest at the rate of 20% per annum on the decretal sum along with cost of the suit. The petitioners herein contested the suit. The Trial Court framed three issues on the basis of the pleadings and after recording the evidence decided the issued in favour of the respondent Nos. 1 to 9 and decreed the suit in respect of the balance amount of compensation as assessed by respondent No. 10 and communicated vide letter dated 4.1.2000 along with 6% interest per annum from the date of judgment until payment. 3. The petitioners being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Trial Court dated 22.3.2006 preferred an appeal before the District Magistrate (j), Aizawl being RFA No. 5 of 2006. The appellate Court after scrutiny of the facts and marshalling the evidence on record both oral documentary affirmed the judgment and decree of the Trial Court dated 22.3.2006. Hence this petition. 4. The respondent Nos. 1 to 9 resisted the petition by filing an affidavit-in-opposition. In their affidavit they contended that they are entitled to due compensation on account of damage of their crops and fruit bearing and other valuable trees etc. by the petitioners white installing 132 KV line over their lands as assessed by the respondent No. 10 and communicated vide letter dated 4.1.2000 to the petitioners for payment. But the re-assessment made by the Deputy Commissioner, Aizawl on 31.3.2000 is illegal inasmuch as such reassessment was made without giving proper notice and due hearing. The Trial Court as well as the first appellate Court rightly set aside the re-assessment made by the Deputy Commissioner, Aizawl on 31.3.2000. Both the judgments of the Courts below do not appear to have suffered any error or illegality and accordingly both the judgments should be maintained. The Trial Court as well as the first appellate Court rightly set aside the re-assessment made by the Deputy Commissioner, Aizawl on 31.3.2000. Both the judgments of the Courts below do not appear to have suffered any error or illegality and accordingly both the judgments should be maintained. There is no merit in the petition filed by the petitioners under Article 227 of the Constitution and accordingly, pray for disposal of the petition. 5. Mr. Zochhuana, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Michael Zothankhuma, learned Counsel assisted by Mr. Samual Vanlalhriata, learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 9 were heard at length. 6. The short issue before us is whether a re-assessment of the compensation made by the Deputy Commissioner, respondent No. 10 herein by adopting a new rate called "upset price" is sustainable in view of absence of service of notice on the respondent Nos. 1 to 9 and by not giving reasonable opportunity of being heard. On this above point, Mr. M. Zothankhuma representing the respondent Nos. 1 to 9 submitted that the respondent Nos. 1 to 9 being the owners of the land and for causing damage to their crops and fruit bearing trees by the petitioners while Installing 132 KV line over their lands they are entitled to compensation for such damages to the extent already assessed by Deputy Commissioner, respondent No. 10, communicated vide letter dated 4.1.2000. The re-assessment was made in respect of compensation by respondent No. 10 herein at the instance of the petitioners without serving any notice on them and without giving opportunity of being heard. The new rate "upset price" was applied by respondent No. 10 which cannot virtually be applied while assessing compensation on account of damage. "Upset price" is applicable on account of illegal felling of trees. "Upset price" is really a "fine" imposed on such illegal felling of trees, therefore, by resorting to "upset price" compensation for damages of crops and fruit bearing trees cannot be made. Such assessment is illegal and cannot sustain in law. It was further argued that the compensation already assessed by the Deputy Commissioner, Aizawl, the respondent No. 10 communicated vide letter dated 4.1.2000 should sustain. Both the below therefore, did not commit any error or illegality in decreeing the suit of the respondent Nos. 1 to 9 for the balance amount with interest. 7. It was further argued that the compensation already assessed by the Deputy Commissioner, Aizawl, the respondent No. 10 communicated vide letter dated 4.1.2000 should sustain. Both the below therefore, did not commit any error or illegality in decreeing the suit of the respondent Nos. 1 to 9 for the balance amount with interest. 7. It is nowhere stated by the petitioners rather contended that before re-assessment of the compensation reasonable opportunity Was afforded to the respondent No. 1 to 9 of being heard after issuing notice. There was no denial on their part that the re-assessment was not made by using a new rate called "upset price". Therefore, the re-assessment so made by the petitioners herein is found to have been made in violation of the principle of natural justice. Any action taken without hearing or giving any opportunity of being heard to the effected party, the effected party may approach the Court to seek appropriate relief or direction etc. 8. Mr. Zochhuana, learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the suit is barred by doctrine of estoppels and acquiescence, since the respondent Nos. 1 to 9 received compensation as assessed by the Deputy Commissioner, respondent No. 10 without any protest. It was further submitted by him that the construction work of 132 KV line was taken by the petitioners with due permission of the State Government authorities and the compensation was made in presence of the representative of the petitioners, village council authorities and the respondents. It was argued that the petitioners never felled trees or damaged the crops or fruit bearing or other trees illegally. The entire amount of compensation was paid in two installments by 3 (three) cheques for disbursement of the sum of the respondents. Re-assessment was made on account of assessment made earlier in a higher side and accordingly, the earlier assessment of compensation was revised by the Deputy Commissioner, respondent No. 10. Mr. Zochhuana, learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners do not have any liability towards the respondent Nos. 1 to 9 and the impugned judgment and decree of the Courts below be dismissed with cost. 9. I have given my anxious consideration to the facts involved in the case as well as the submissions advanced by the counsel for both the parties. It is an admitted fact that re-assessment was made without serving any notice whatsoever on the respondent Nos. 9. I have given my anxious consideration to the facts involved in the case as well as the submissions advanced by the counsel for both the parties. It is an admitted fact that re-assessment was made without serving any notice whatsoever on the respondent Nos. 1 to 9 and without affording any opportunity to being heard. Therefore, reassessment of compensation so made by the Deputy Commissioner, respondent No. 10 cannot sustain in law. The Trial Court as well as appellate Court rightly held that the respondent Nos. 1 to 9 are entitled to have a decree for the balance amount of compensation as assessed and communicated vide letter dated 4.1.2000 by the Deputy Commissioner, Aizawl. 10. I do not find any merit in the petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution. It is accordingly dismissed. The judgment and decree passed by the Courts below are affirmed. 11. No cost. Petition dismissed