Judgment Heard Shri A. F. Diniz, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Shri E. Afonso, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith by consent of the learned counsels. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents waives service. 4. The above petition challenges the judgment dated 20.12.2007 passed by the learned District Judge, South Goa, Margao, in Land Acquisition Case No. 34/2002 whereby an application filed by the petitioners under Section 16(3) read with Section 10(d) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and Section 51 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 came to be dismissed. 5. Briefly, the facts of the case are that a Special Civil Suit No. 252/2000 was filed by the petitioners in the Court of the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Margao, in view of an attempt by the respondents for laying of 33 KV line across the property belonging to the petitioners surveyed under nos. 77/1 and 84/1 of village Velim Goa. Along with the said suit, the petitioners had filed a Civil Misc. Application for interim reliefs which came to be allowed by order dated 06.01.2001. The learned Additional District Judge, Margao, set aside the order passed by the learned Trial Court by order dated 27.09.2001. A Civil Revision Application was filed by the petitioners before this Court being Civil Revision Application No. 197 of 2001 which came to be disposed of by directing the respondents to deposit a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-towards the compensation payable to the petitioners being damages towards the trees, loss of user of land and other matters. Accordingly, such amount was deposited before the learned District Court. The petitioners filed an application for compensation on 14.03.2002 which came to be rejected by order dated 27.09.2002. A Revision Application was filed before this Court being Revision Application No. 251 of 2002 whereby this Court by order dated 10.10.2006 set aside the said order and remanded the matter back to the learned District Judge to decide the application filed by the petitioners afresh. After recording of evidence and hearing the parties, the learned District Judge by the impugned judgment dated 20.12.2007 rejected the application filed by the petitioners. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the petitioners have preferred the present petition. 6. After recording of evidence and hearing the parties, the learned District Judge by the impugned judgment dated 20.12.2007 rejected the application filed by the petitioners. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the petitioners have preferred the present petition. 6. Shri A. F. Diniz, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners has assailed the impugned judgment essentially on the ground that the learned Judge has failed to consider that as a 33 KV line was passing through the property of the petitioners, substantial damage has occurred to the property of the petitioners which the respondents are liable to compensate. The learned Counsel has pointed out that the learned Judge has failed to consider that under Section 83 of the Electricity Rules, 1956 the laying of such lines would affect not only the enjoyment of the land by the petitioners horizontally as well as laterally because there are restrictions imposed by the said Rules. The learned counsel has further pointed out that by putting up such electricity lines, as far as the petitioners are concerned, the value of the land has substantially diminished and as such, the learned Judge was not justified to reject the application filed by the petitioners in toto. The learned Counsel further pointed out that the learned Judge has quoted the provisions in the impugned judgment but the effect of such provisions has not at all been discussed by the learned Judge whilst passing the impugned judgment. The learned Counsel further pointed out that this Court in fact has directed the respondents to deposit a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-and as such, refusing any compensation to the petitioners for the area of 800 running metres would amount to injustice to the petitioners. The learned counsel has further pointed out that the petitioners have been deprived of enjoyment of the property which the respondents are liable to compensate. The learned Counsel further pointed out that the learned Judge has misconstrued the provisions of law and erroneously passed the impugned judgment. 7. On the other hand, Shri E. Afonso, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents has supported the impugned judgment. The learned Counsel pointed out that the petitioners have already paid a sum of Rs.11,000/-on account of the damages in respect of the trees affected by the proposed electricity lines and as such the petitioners are not entitled for any further compensation. The learned Counsel pointed out that the petitioners have already paid a sum of Rs.11,000/-on account of the damages in respect of the trees affected by the proposed electricity lines and as such the petitioners are not entitled for any further compensation. The learned Counsel further pointed out that the petitioners have failed to bring out any cogent evidence on record to establish their claim nor any material has been adduced to establish that there was any diminishing in the value of the land. The learned Counsel has taken me through the impugned judgment and pointed out that the learned Judge has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and has come to the conclusion that the petitioners have failed to establish any diminishing in the value of the land belonging to the petitioners. The learned Counsel as such submits that no interference is called for in the impugned judgment. 8. Upon hearing the learned counsel and on perusal of the records, I find that the learned Judge has proceeded to decide the matter on the premise that the petitioners were entitled to the compensation in terms of the Land Acquisition Act. In fact, on perusal of the relevant provisions of the Telegraph Act as well as the Electricity Rules, as 33 KV line is passing through the property of the petitioners, there would be substantial restrictions for enjoyment of the land by the petitioners. The petitioners would be entitled to compensate on account of such diminishing in the value of the land. In fact, this Court while directing the respondents to deposit a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-has inter-alia observed that the said amount would be to consider to what extent the petitioners are entitled for the compensation on account of diminishing in the value of the trees, and the amount of compensation payable to the petitioners for damage to the trees for non user of the land and other matters. In the present case, the learned Judge has not at all considered to what extent the petitioners would be entitled to the compensation on account of non user of the said land. To consider the extent of non user, the provisions of Sections 77 to 83 of the Electricity Rules, 1956 would be relevant. The learned Judge has not at all considered the said provisions whilst considering whether the petitioners would be entitled for such compensation. 9. To consider the extent of non user, the provisions of Sections 77 to 83 of the Electricity Rules, 1956 would be relevant. The learned Judge has not at all considered the said provisions whilst considering whether the petitioners would be entitled for such compensation. 9. Shri Afonso, learned counsel appearing for the respondents is justified to contend that the petitioners have been unnecessarily dragging the matter and not producing any cogent evidence to establish their alleged claim. Considering the said attitude of the petitioners, I find that the respondents are to be compensated on account of such lapse on the part of the petitioners. The costs on that count are fixed at Rs.10,000/-. Subject to the payment of the said sum of Rs.10,000/-, in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate to quash and set aside the impugned judgment passed by the learned Judge and direct the learned Judge to decide the application filed by the petitioners afresh after hearing the parties in accordance with law. As the material on record is not sufficient to assess the compensation which the petitioners could be entitled, the matter has to be remanded to the learned District Judge. This exercise is carried out in the interest of justice and it cannot be disputed that on account of the passing of the electrical lines, the petitioners would not be entitled to just enjoyment of the land in view of the restrictions imposed by the Rules. Hence, liberty is also given to the petitioners to lead further evidence in support of their allegations. Needless to say, the respondents would be entitled to lead rebuttal evidence, if any, in answer to any such evidence. 10. In view of the above, I pass the following: (i) The impugned judgment dated 20.12.2007 is quashed and set aside. (ii) The Land Acquisition Case No. 34/2002 is restored to the file of the learned District Judge, South Goa, Margao, subject to the petitioners paying the costs of Rs.10,000/-as condition precedent. (iii) The learned Judge to decide the said application filed by the petitioners afresh after hearing the parties in the light of the observations made herein above in accordance with law. (iv) The costs to be paid to the Goa State Legal Services Authority within four weeks from today. (v) Rule is made absolute in the above terms. (iii) The learned Judge to decide the said application filed by the petitioners afresh after hearing the parties in the light of the observations made herein above in accordance with law. (iv) The costs to be paid to the Goa State Legal Services Authority within four weeks from today. (v) Rule is made absolute in the above terms. (vi) Parties are directed to appear before the learned District Judge, South Goa, Margao, on 10.12.2012 at 10.00 a.m.