ORDER : (Sunita Agarwal, J.) 1. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants and perused the record, we find that the order impugned before the learned Single Judge was passed by the Deputy Collector and Sub- Divisional Magistrate, computing compensation for the damages caused to the land owners as per Section 10(d) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, by applying the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 2013”, for short) by inclusion of factors such as market value of the land, nature of agriculture, nature of tree etc. Before the learned Single Judge, the challenge was about applicability of the Act of 2013 in the matter of determination of damages as per Section 10(d) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. The learned Single Judge having noticed the decision of the Division Bench of this Court about the impact of Section 68 and Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003 over the exercise of power under Section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, has reached at the conclusion that the provisions of the Act of 2013 cannot apply for determination of compensation/damages under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, in as much as, there is no acquisition of land as contemplated under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. 2. Mr. Devdip Brahmbhatt, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, however, relies upon the decision of the learned Single Judge of the Kerala High Court in Writ Petition(C) No.27378 of 2019(V) dated 25.02.2020, wherein the learned Judge of the Kerala High Court in one paragraph has stated that there was no reason to accept the contention of the respondents therein as to why the respondents are not liable to grant compensation, rehabilitation and resettlement package in accordance with the Act of 2013, simply because, there is no land acquisition in the said cases. It was further directed that the petitioners therein shall be entitled to compensation as contemplated under the provisions of Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. 3. It was further directed that the petitioners therein shall be entitled to compensation as contemplated under the provisions of Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. 3. Based on the said observations, it is vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that the observations of the Kerala High Court for application of the Act of 2013 in the matter of determination of compensation/damages for exercising the right of way over the land under Section 10(d) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 have persuasive value. We are afraid to accept the said contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants by reading the observations made in paragraphs 10, 14 and 15 of the decision of the Kerala High Court, which read as under:- “10. There is no dispute that no property of the petitioners are being acquired for the purpose of drawal of the transmission line as contemplated under the provisions of Act 30 of 2013. Much reliance is placed by the learned counsel on Section 105 and Section 113 of the Act and also the IV Schedule of the Act to substantiate his contention that compensation will have to be assessed in tune with Act 30 of 2013. In my considered opinion, the argument raised by the petitioners have no basis. 14. The Electricity Act, 2003 has been included as item No. 12 in the IV Schedule. Section 113 enables the Central Government, in case any difficulty arises in giving effect to the provisions, to give directions not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act as may appear to it to be necessary or expedient for the removal of the difficulty and it further provides such power shall not be exercised after the expiry of a period of two years. The said provision also provides that every order made under the said Section shall be laid before each House of Parliament. 15. From Ext.P1 and P2 produced in W.P.(C) No.19446/2019, [Exts.P2 and P3 in W.P.(C) No.27378/2019], it is apparent that those orders have been issued under Section 113 of Act 30 of 2013. The said provision also provides that every order made under the said Section shall be laid before each House of Parliament. 15. From Ext.P1 and P2 produced in W.P.(C) No.19446/2019, [Exts.P2 and P3 in W.P.(C) No.27378/2019], it is apparent that those orders have been issued under Section 113 of Act 30 of 2013. It states that the provisions of Act 30 of 2013 relating to determination of compensation in accordance with the I Schedule, rehabilitation and resettlement in accordance with the II Schedule and infrastructure amenities in accordance with the III Schedule shall apply to all cases of land acquisition under the enactments specified in the IV schedule of the Act. Though there are no materials to show that the order which is relied on by the petitioners have been laid before each House of the Parliament, the fact remains that there is no land acquisition in the instant case. If there is no acquisition of land, there cannot be any application of the provisions of Act 30 of 2013.” 4. It was noted that there was no notification of the Central Government either under Section 105 or under Section 113 of the Act of 2013 in the matter of determination of compensation under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. It was noted by the Kerala High Court that the Central Government is empowered under Section 105 of the Act of 2013 by issuing a notification to apply the provisions of the Act of 2013 relating to the determination of compensation to the cases of land acquisition under the enactment as specified in the Fourth Schedule of the Act of 2013 and further, Section 113 of the Act of 2013 enables the Central Government to give direction not in consistent with the provisions of the Act of 2013 in case of difficulty arising in giving effect to the provisions of the said Act. 5. From paragraph 15 of the said decision of the Kerala High Court, it was be noted that it was recorded that the order, which was relied upon by the petitioners, could not be the basis of passing any decision in their favour as there was no acquisition of land and as such, there was no question of application of the provisions of the Act of 2013. 6. 6. In view of the above, we reject the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants about applicability of the Act of 2013 based on the decision of the learned Single Judge of the Kerala High Court in the above noted judgment. Taking note of the above, we may note the relevant provisions of the Act of 2013, i. e. Section 105, Section 113 and Schedule 4, which may be reproduced here under for ready reference:- “105. Provisions of this Act not to apply in certain cases or to apply with certain modifications.– (1) Subject to sub-section (3), the provisions of this Act shall not apply to the enactments relating to land acquisition specified in the Fourth Schedule. (2) Subject to sub-section (2) of section 106, the Central Government may, by notification, omit or add to any of the enactments specified in the Fourth Schedule. (3) The Central Government shall, by notification, within one year from the date of commencement of this Act, direct that any of the provisions of this Act relating to the determination of compensation in accordance with the First Schedule and rehabilitation and resettlement specified in the Second and Third Schedules, being beneficial to the affected families, shall apply to the cases of land acquisition under the enactments specified in the Fourth Schedule or shall apply with such exceptions or modifications that do not reduce the compensation or dilute the provisions of this Act relating to compensation or rehabilitation and resettlement as may be specified in the notification, as the case may be. (4) A copy of every notification proposed to be issued under sub-section (3), shall be laid in draft before each House of Parliament, while it is in session, for a total period of thirty days which may be comprised in one session or in two or more successive sessions, and if, before the expiry of the session immediately following the session or the successive sessions aforesaid, both Houses agree in disapproving the issue of the notification or both Houses agree in making any modification in the notification, the notification shall not be issued or, as the case may be, shall be issued only in such modified form as may be agreed upon by both the Houses of Parliament. 113. 113. Power to remove difficulties.– (1) If any difficulty arises in giving effect to the provisions of this Part, the Central Government may, by order, make such provisions or give such directions not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act as may appear to it to be necessary or expedient for the removal of the difficulty: Provided that no such power shall be exercised after the expiry of a period of two years from the commencement of this Act. (2) Every order made under this section shall be laid, as soon as may be after it is made, before each House of Parliament. THE FOURTH SCHEDULE (See section 105) LIST OF ENACTMENTS REGULATING LAND ACQUISITION AND REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT 1. The Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 (24 of 1958). 2. The Atomic Energy Act, 1962 (33 of 1962). 3. The Damodar Valley Corporation Act, 1948 (14 of 1948). 4. The Indian Tramways Act, 1886 (11 of 1886) 5. The Land Acquisition (Mines) Act, 1885 (18 of 1885). 6. The Metro Railways (Construction of Works) Act, 1978 (33 of 1978). 7. The National Highways Act, 1956 (48 of 1956). 8. The Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962). 9. The Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 (30 of 1952). 10. The Resettlement of Displaced Persons (Land Acquisition) Act, 1948 (60 of 1948). 11. The Coal Bearing Areas Acquisition and Development Act, 1957 (20 of 1957). 12. The Electricity Act, 2003 (36 of 2003). 13. The Railways Act, 1989 (24 of 1989).” 7. A perusal of Section 105(1) of the Act of 2013 indicates that it is provided therein that the provisions of the Act of 2013 shall not apply to the enactments relating to land acquisition specified in the Fourth Schedule. However, sub-section (3) of Section 105 enabled the Central Government to apply the provisions of the Act of 2013 relating to the determination of compensation to the cases of land acquisition under the enactments specified in the Fourth Schedule. However, sub-section (3) of Section 105 enabled the Central Government to apply the provisions of the Act of 2013 relating to the determination of compensation to the cases of land acquisition under the enactments specified in the Fourth Schedule. The relevant is to note that the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 is not one of the enactments provided under the Fourth Schedule and as such, there was no question of issuance of notification by the Central Government for applicability of the provisions of the Act of 2013 to the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 in the matter relating to determination of compensation/damages under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. It may be noted that Section 113 enabled the Central Government to make any order to give full effect to the provisions of the Act of 2013 by removal of any difficulty in implementation of such provisions. However, the order passed by the Central Government in exercise of power under Section 113 shall not be inconsistent with the provisions of the Act of 2013 and shall be only in the nature of removal of difficulty in giving the effect to the provisions of the Act of 2013. 8. Admittedly, there is no notification of the Central Government either under Section 105 or Section 113 of the Act of 2013 in respect of the determination of the compensation/damages under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. 9. We may further record that the submission of the appellants before the learned Single Judge about applicability of the Act of 2013 was based on the provisions of Section 68 read with Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003, which provide for laying overhead lines and exercise of power of the telegraph authority under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 in the matter of laying of electric lines or electrical plant for the transmission of electricity. The fact that by virtue of Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003, the same power is conferred as upon the telegraph authority under Section 10 and Section 11 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 to enter into the private property for the purpose of carrying out, placing and maintenance of the telegraph line, it cannot be said that the provisions of the Act of 2013 would apply in the matter of determination of compensation under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, in as much as, the Electricity Act, 2003 is one of the enactments included in the Fourth Schedule of the Act of 2013. 10. It is not possible for us to accept the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants that since, by virtue of Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003, similar power is conferred upon the Electricity Authority as that of the Telegraph Authority, both the provisions pertaining to laying overhead line/transmission line would have to be read in a a manner that criteria for determination of compensation under the Electricity Act should apply to laying of transmission line under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. 11. If this submission is accepted, it would amount to inclusion of the provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 in the Fourth Schedule of the Act of 2013, which is purely legislative function. In any case, this Court by issuing a mandamus cannot legislate to include any enactment in the Fourth Schedule of the Act of 2013. 12. For the aforesaid, we do not find any error in the order of the learned Single Judge in holding that the provisions of the Act of 2013 will not be applicable in the matter of determination of damages/compensation under Section 10(d) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. The decision of the learned Single Judge in setting aside the orders dated 12.10.2022 and 05.01.2023 passed by the Deputy Collector and Sub-Divisional Magistrate, therefore, cannot be said to suffer from any error of law. The decision of the learned Single Judge in setting aside the orders dated 12.10.2022 and 05.01.2023 passed by the Deputy Collector and Sub-Divisional Magistrate, therefore, cannot be said to suffer from any error of law. Lastly coming to the direction contained in the judgment and order impugned about withdrawal of compensation deposited by the petitioners as per their own estimation under the interim order dated 19.12.2022, suffice it to say that Section 10(d) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 puts liability upon the Telegraph Authority to pay full compensation to all persons interested for any damages sustained by them by reason of exercise of power in entering over the property of the said persons to place and maintain the telegraph line. Thus, the power to enter a private property in order to repair or remove or place or maintain telegraph line or post under Section 10 and Section 11 is subject to payment of damages sustained by the land owners. Section 16(3) further provides that in case of any dispute relating to sufficiency of the compensation to be paid under section 10(d), the affected party may approach the District Judge within whose jurisdiction the property is situated. In the said scenario, in case of any dispute pertaining to sufficiency of estimated compensation deposited by the respondents/original petitioners before the Deputy Collector under the interim order dated 19.12.2022, can very well be raised by invoking the provisions of Section 16(3) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, before the District Judge. 13. For the above noted reasons, we do not find any error in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The Appeal is dismissed being devoid of merits. 14. The Civil Application for stay does not survive and the same is disposed of accordingly.