JUDGMENT : S. PANDA, J. Petitioners-appellants in this application have challenged the order dated 16.05.2014 passed by learned Add!. District Judge, Bhubaneswat in FAO. No 74 of 2009 directing the opposite party NO.2 to pay compensation of Rs. 2, 50, 000/- to the appellants for causing damage over the suit land within three months from the date of the orders. 2. The facts leading to the present case as narrated in the application are as follows.- The present petitioners as plaintiffs field the civil suit for declaration of their right, title interest and for permanent injunction in the alternative to pass a decree of mandatory injunction directing the defendants to pay the plaintiffs compensation in accordance with the provisions contained under Section 10 (d) of the Indian Telegraph Act. The land under Hal Plot No 433/2018 in Hal Khata NO.243 of mouza Bhubaneswar Town Unit No.41, Chandrasekharpur measuring an area of Ac. 0.090 dec. belongs to plaintiffs over which the defendants erected electric tower. In the suit the plaintiffs impleaded GRIDCO represented through its Chairman - Cum - Managing Director as defendant No. 1 and CESCO represented through its Chief Executive Officer as defendent NO.2. The defendant have appeared and field their separate written statement. 3. Defendant NO.1 has traversed the allegations made by the plaintiffs and contended that after commencing of Orissa Electricity Reforms Act, 1995 for subsidiaries companies CESCO now CESU, WESCO, NESCQ and SOUTHCO came into existence including the GRIDCO and as such Orissa State Electricity Board is no more in existence, so 33 KV line is maintained by CESCO. As such defendant NO.1 has denied its liability and averred that suit is not maintainable and is barred by law of limitation. Plaintiffs have got no cause of action to file the suit and the suit is not maintainable because of M/s.-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties so that same be dismissed. 4. Defendant NO.2 has contended in his written statement that it has completed a power transmission lines running from Chandaka to Bhubaneswar City under the Government approved scheme known as BEINA. The said transmission line is running on the left side of Nandan - Kanan - Bhubaneswar road. 4. Defendant NO.2 has contended in his written statement that it has completed a power transmission lines running from Chandaka to Bhubaneswar City under the Government approved scheme known as BEINA. The said transmission line is running on the left side of Nandan - Kanan - Bhubaneswar road. As such, defendant NO.2 has denied that there was no forcible encroachment of plaintiffs and defendant NO.2 has also contended that while executing the project work due care has been taken to life and properties of nearby land owners, keeping in mind that less possible minimum damage and inconvenience caused to people of that area. Defendant NO.2 further contended that if it is found that if any such land owners sustained any loss for such work, then they are at liberty to claim monetary compensation defendant No.2 has also challenged the maintainability of suit and also raised the plea of non- joinder of the State as party and has contended that the suit is bad on the question of law of estoppel and acquiescence. 5. Accordingly the trial Court came to the conclusion that appropriate forum to claim compensation as per Section 16 (3) and (4) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 is before the learned District Judge within whose jurisdiction the property is situated and the plaint accordingly returned to the plaintiffs to presents before the appropriate forum. 6. Thereafter the plaintiffs filed F.A. O. No. 17174 of 2010 12009 before the learned Add!. District Judge, Bhubaneswar. In the appeal, the defendant-respondents appeared and contested the case. After hearing the parties, the appellate Court by order dated 13.12.20.10 confirmed the findings of the trial Court in all respect except the direction of the trial Court to present the case before the appropriate Court. Accordingly the appellate Court set aside the said finding and directed the defendants to assess the compensation taking into account the damage caused to the land of the plaintiffs and to pay them forthwith. Challenging the order passed in F.A.O No 17/74 of 2010/2009 defendant NO.2 filed W.P (C) No. 2375 of 2011 which was disposed of on 2.4.2014 and the order of the appellate Court was modified. 7. Challenging the order passed in F.A.O No 17/74 of 2010/2009 defendant NO.2 filed W.P (C) No. 2375 of 2011 which was disposed of on 2.4.2014 and the order of the appellate Court was modified. 7. The District Judge is the competent authority to decide the dispute between the parties as per Section 16(3) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and assess the quantum of compensation to be paid under Section (10)( d) of the Act. Hence the case was remitted back to the learned District Judge to assess the quantum of compensation. The said order was not challenged in the' higher forum. Pursuant to the direction of this Court, compensation was assessed by the learned District Judge in, the impugned order. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the learned Add/. District Judge, Bhubaneswar on.an erroneous impression of law and facts came to a conclusion that compensation cannot be equated with cost of the land as title of such land will not pass to defendant NO.2 in any manner even though the said defendant is to pay the compensation for wrong doing. The appellate Court has determined the compensation on the said finding at a lower rate which is liable to be interfered with. In support of his contention he has cited the decisions reported in A.I.R.1996 Kerala 309, Arya Antherjanam V. Kerala State Electricity Board, Trivandrum, A.I.R. 2000 Orissa 13, Saraswati Parabhai and another V. Grid Corporation of Orissa and others. 9. Learned counsel appearing for opposite party however supported the quantum of compensation determined by the learned Add/. District Judge and submits that the land is agricultural land. He further submits that as per the map since the rest of the land can be utilized for cultivation therefore, the impugned award need not be interfered with. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party relied on the decisions reported in AIR 2007 Gujarat 32, Jayantkumar Bhagubhai Patel and another V. State of Gujarat and another, 2001 (1) OLR 663 , Soma Oram V. Chairman Steel Authority of India Limited, New Delhi and others. 10. On the analysis of facts and the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties it is not disputed that defendants have constructed a bracket like structure and installed electric poles over the disputed land belongs to the petitioners for transmission of 33 KV electric line from Chandaka to Bhubaneswar. 10. On the analysis of facts and the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties it is not disputed that defendants have constructed a bracket like structure and installed electric poles over the disputed land belongs to the petitioners for transmission of 33 KV electric line from Chandaka to Bhubaneswar. Further they have constructed boundary wall in the land which was completely covered with electrical pole and stay wire along with the boundary wall. 11. The petitioners also examined a private Amin in support of their contention regarding damages caused to their land who has submitted his report along with field book and sketch map which was marked as Ext.9. The said Ext.9 was not objected by the defendants. The said Amin was examined as P.W.2 who has proved his report. P.W.2 following due procedure has measured and demarcate the disputed land referring to the field book. His report was marked as exhibit Ext.9 which reveals that the entire suit land was affected and damage sustained by the petitioners. It is not possible to do agricultural operation over land due to erection of poles. Stay wire and boundary wall. 12. Therefore while determining the damages sustained by the petitioners the Court below should have considered the above material available on records. The compensation means the damage done to the land due to erection of electric pole and construction of boundary wall along with stay wire put up by the opposite party. The compensation payable under section 1 O(d) of the Telegraph Act is the just equivalent of what the owner has been deprived of. Therefore the finding of the Court below that the compensation cannot be equated with cost of the land is not sustainable in law and is liable to be set aside. 13. In the case of Arya Antherjanam (supra) the Court has held that it is open to the owners of the land to claim compensation for diminution in land value when towers and poles are erected on and electric lines drawn over their lands. Since capitalization method is not being adopted for assessing the quantum of compensation in case of placing of electric lines through lands for cutting trees it is open to the land owners to claim compensation for a diminution in market value of the property. Since capitalization method is not being adopted for assessing the quantum of compensation in case of placing of electric lines through lands for cutting trees it is open to the land owners to claim compensation for a diminution in market value of the property. Thus apart from the compensation for damage done to the trees there can be other damage to the land for which compensation can be claimed. In the case of Saraswati Parabhai (supra) the Court has held that death by electrocution damages to be determined as per Law of Torts. The present case is regarding damages to the land and the compensation is to be paid as per Indian Telegraph Act. 14. In the case of Jayantkumar Bhagubhai Patel (supra) the Court has held that consent of the land owner before erecting tower not necessary and the area used for erection of tower is 100 sq. mts. Out of 40, 000 sq. mts. and no damage of permanent nature would be caused and land could be used for agricultural purpose. In the case of Soma Oram (supra) this Court has held that the land owner is entitled to get compensation in accordance with the provision contained in the Indian Telegraph Act and if the quantum of compensation fixed by the Collector is not satisfactory it is open to parties to approach the appropriate forum i.e. the District Judge. 15. In view of the above position of law instead of remitting back the matter again to the Court below this Court taken into consideration the following materials available on record i.e. the sale deep dated 19.11.2005 produced by the petitioners of the same village i.e. Chandrasekhapur where the land with an area of Ac. 0.080 dec. was sold for Rs. 12,15,2801- in the year 2005. The entire land in the present case is being covered by the construction erected by the opposite parties, they are liable to pay the land sold in the area i.e Chandrasekharpur in the year 2005 and its valuation and as the defendants have not adduced any rebuttal materials regarding the valuation of the land, this Court enhances the compensation amount in respect of the land which was damaged due to erection of electric pole from Rs. 2,50,000/- to Rs. 8,00,000/- on the basis of materials available on records. 2,50,000/- to Rs. 8,00,000/- on the basis of materials available on records. The payment shall be made within a period of six weeks failing which the same shall carry 8% interest per annum. Accordingly the Civil Miscellaneous Petition is disposed of.