JUDGMENT : Devashis Baruah, J. Heard Mr. A. Kundu, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners and Mr. M. Nath, the learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. A. Roy, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.5. I have also heard Ms. U. Das, the learned Additional Senior Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1 and 6 and Mr. B. Chowdhury, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4. 2. The Petitioners herein are aggrieved by the actions on the part of the Respondent Authorities in erecting ST Electric Post on their respective lands alleging that the said actions are contrary to the settled principles of law. 3. The facts of the instant case as it reveal from the records are that all the three Petitioners are owners of various plots of land. It is the case of the Petitioners that the Respondent APDCL have installed ST Electric post in their respective lands by forcefully entering into their respective lands and starting construction. It is the further case of the Petitioners that the Respondent Authorities have no authority to install/erect/lay down transmission line on or over the lands belonging to the private persons unless permissions are obtained incompliance with Rule 3(1) of the Works of Licensees Rules, 2006 (for short ‘the Rules of 2006’) framed in exercise of powers under Section 67(2) read with Section 176(2)(e) of the Electricity Act, 2003. 4. The records reveal that this Court passed an order on 26.07.2017 whereby notice was issued and till the returnable date, the Respondent No.5 was directed not to energize the concerned 11 KV line. The record further reveals that no affidavit in the meantime has been filed. When the matter was taken up by this Court on 07.08.2025, this Court directed the Respondents to carry out assessment as to what amount the Petitioners are entitled to and provide an update to this Court by the next date fixed. In the meantime, the Respondents have carried out an assessment and as per their estimation, the three Petitioners are entitled to a total amount of Rs.23,312/-. This aspect would be apparent from the instructions placed before this Court which were kept on record and marked with the letter “Y”. 5. It was also submitted by Mr. In the meantime, the Respondents have carried out an assessment and as per their estimation, the three Petitioners are entitled to a total amount of Rs.23,312/-. This aspect would be apparent from the instructions placed before this Court which were kept on record and marked with the letter “Y”. 5. It was also submitted by Mr. B. Chowdhury, the learned Standing counsel for the APDCL that the Respondent Authorities have taken steps for making payment of the said amount of Rs.23,312/- to the Petitioners but the Petitioners have refused to accept. 6. In the backdrop of the above, let this Court now take note of the respective submissions made on behalf of the parties. 7. Mr. A. Kundu, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners submitted that it is the mandate of Rule 3 of the Rules of 2006 whereby a licensee is only permitted to carry out works of laying down or placing any electric supply line or other works in, through, or against, any building, or on, over or under any land with the prior consent of the owner or the occupier of the building or the land. The learned counsel further submitted that the licensee however can lay down or place any electric supply land over a private land if no consent taken only after obtaining the permission in writing from the District Magistrate or the Commissioner of Police or any other Officer authorized by the State Government in that behalf for carrying out the works. The learned counsel submitted that in the instant case, the Respondent Authorities more particularly the Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 have neither taken consent of the Petitioners nor the written permission from the District Magistrate or the Commissioner of Police or any other Officer authorized by the State Government was obtained. The learned counsel therefore submitted that the very laying down of electric supply line over the land of the Petitioners is absolutely illegal and unauthorized and therefore appropriate directions is required to be passed. 8. Mr. B. Chowdhury, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the APDCL submitted that the question as to whether prior consent was taken from the Petitioners or not is a question of fact which cannot be adjudicated in the present forum. 8. Mr. B. Chowdhury, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the APDCL submitted that the question as to whether prior consent was taken from the Petitioners or not is a question of fact which cannot be adjudicated in the present forum. In addition to that, the learned Standing counsel submitted in terms with Rule 13 of the Rules of 2006 such disputes if any can be decided by the District Magistrate or any other Officer authorized by the State Government in that behalf, if there is no mutual agreement between the parties. In addition to that, the learned Standing counsel further submitted that the Appropriate Commission is conferred with the jurisdiction for making determination under the Rules of 2006. 9. The learned Standing counsel for the APDCL submitted that State of Assam have also formulated a set of Rules which is known as Assam Electricity Works of Licensees Rules, 2019 (for short ‘the Rules of 2019’) wherein the pari materia provisions are incorporated to that of the Rules of 2006. 10. This Court had heard the learned counsels for the parties at length. 11. The question as to whether prior consent of the Petitioners was taken or not is a question of fact. In addition to that, it is relevant to take note of Rule 13 of the Rules of 2006 which was holding the field at the time when the dispute between the Petitioners and the Respondent APDCL arose. Rule 13 of the Rules of 2006 being relevant is reproduced herein under: “ 13 . Determination and payment of compensation to affected persons- (1) Where the licensee makes default in complying with any of the provisions of these rules, he shall make full compensation for any loss or damage incurred by reason thereof to the person affected, as may be determined by the District Magistrate or by any other officer authorized by the State Government in this behalf, if not agreed mutually between the parties concerned.” 12. From a perusal of the above quoted Rules, it is seen that if a licensee i.e. the APDCL had committed a default in complying with any of the provisions of the Rules of 2006 which also includes Rule 3, the licensee shall be liable to make full compensation for such loss or damage incurred by reason thereof to the person affected. This aspect can be determined by the District Magistrate or by any other Officer authorized by the State Government in that behalf, if not agreed mutually between the parties. 13. It is further seen from Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 13 of the Rules of 2006 that if there any differences and disputes arise as regards to the amount of compensation determined in terms with Sub-Rule (1), the matter may be determined by the Appropriate Commission. 14. This Court further finds it relevant to take note of Rule 15 of the Rules of 2006 which is reproduced herein under: “ 15 . Determination of dispute or difference by the Appropriate Commission – When a matter is brought to the Appropriate Commission for determination under these rules, the matter shall be determined by the Appropriate Commission within a period of thirty days and after hearing the parties concerned.” 15. From a perusal of the Rule 15 of the Rules of 2006, it is seen that when a matter is brought to the Appropriate Commission for determination under the Rules of 2006, the matter shall be determined by the Appropriate Commission within a period of 30 days after hearing the parties concerned. 16. It is also relevant to take note of that in the meantime, while the present proceedings have been going on, the State Government had formulated Rules of 2019 wherein the provisions including Rules 13 and 15 of the Rules of 2006 are pari materia. It is further relevant to take note of that Rule 2(d) of the Rules of 2019 defines Commission which to mean “Assam Electricity Regulatory Commission”. 17. A conjoint reading of Rules 3, 13 and 15 of the Rules of 2006 which are pari materia to the Rules 3, 13 and 15 of the Rules of 2019, it is therefore the opinion of this Court that if there is any violation committed to the mandate of the Rules, it is the duty of the District Magistrate to determine the compensation payable to the affected party for the loss suffered by the affected party. It is also seen that if there is any dispute or difference as regards the amount of compensation determined by the District Magistrate, the matter can be decided by Appropriate Commission. It is also seen that if there is any dispute or difference as regards the amount of compensation determined by the District Magistrate, the matter can be decided by Appropriate Commission. Further to that, taking into account Rule 15 of the Rules of 2006 which further empowers the Appropriate Commission to determine anything under the Rules, it is the opinion of this Court that the dispute between the Petitioners as well as the Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 can very well be determined by the Appropriate Commission. 18. Before concluding, this Court also finds it relevant to observe that the Respondent APDCL with the District Administration have assessed the compensation of an amount of Rs.23,312/- on the basis of the valuation of the land. But the determination is to be carried out is on the aspect to the loss suffered by the affected person being the stipulation of the law. Under such circumstances, it is the opinion of this Court that while determining the compensation, the District Magistrate or the Appropriate Commission is required to assess the loss suffered on account of laying the electric posts over the land of the Petitioners. In this regard, as there is no clear stipulation as to how the loss suffered can be assessed in the Rules of 2006 as well as the Rules of 2019, it is the opinion of this Court that the parameters laid down in Sections 26 and 28 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 would be applicable for ascertaining the loss suffered. 19. Accordingly, the instant writ petition therefore stands disposed of with the following observations and directions: (i) The Petitioners herein are given the liberty to approach the Appropriate Commission i.e. the Assam Electricity Regulatory Commission within a period of 30 days from today seeking damages/compensation for the loss suffered by the Petitioners in view of the action on the part of the Respondent Authorities in laying electric supply lines over the land of the Petitioners. (ii) The Appropriate Commission i.e. the Assam Electricity Regulatory Commission shall decide the said disputes in terms with Rule 15 of the Rules of 2019 within the period stipulated by giving both the parties an opportunity of hearing. (ii) The Appropriate Commission i.e. the Assam Electricity Regulatory Commission shall decide the said disputes in terms with Rule 15 of the Rules of 2019 within the period stipulated by giving both the parties an opportunity of hearing. (iii) The Petitioners herein are given the liberty to accept the amount tendered without prejudice to approaching the Appropriate Commission i.e. the Assam Electricity Regulatory Commission as per the liberty hereby given. (iv) Interim order passed on 26.07.2017 stands vacated.