JUDGMENT AND ORDER : DEVASHIS BARUAH, J. Heard Mr. S. Upadhyay, the learned counsel appering on behalf of the Petitioner and Mr. B. Chowdhury, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4. I have also heard Mr. D. Nath, the learned Senior Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.5. 2. The Petitioner herein claims that he is the owner of 8 Bighas of land under Dag No.246 covered by Periodic Patta No.67 of Village Dhirai Majuli, Mouza Borsola in the District of Sonitpur, Assam. 3. Upon the said land belonging to the Petitioner, the Respondent APDCL Authorities have erected various pillars and thereby rendering 2 Bighas of land out of 8 Bighas useless. It is the case of the Petitioner that the same was done in the year 2016 and that too without following any provisions of law. The Petitioner had submitted representations as well as legal notices claiming compensation but the Respondents have not considered the same and it is under such circumstances, the Petitioner is compelled to approach this Court. 4. This Court vide an order dated 20.01.2020 issued notice. 5. The record reveals that an affidavit-in-opposition was filed by the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 wherein it is mentioned that the electricity line was constructed in the Dhirai Majuli area under UNIFIED FUND -2014-15 by the P&D Department, Government of Assam and the transformer was installed under the Chief Minister’s Power Supply Assurance Mission 2013-14 (CMPSAM) as a priority task for 100% electrification of rural areas. There is no denial to the fact that over the land of the Petitioner, certain posts have been erected. It is however mentioned in the said affidavit-in- opposition that the Petitioner is not entitled to the compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- as has been sought for in the instant petition. 6. This Court has duly heard the learned counsels for the parties and had perused the materials on record. The fact that over the Petitioner’s land, certain posts were erected is not denied. The fact that the Petitioner is entitled to compensation is also not denied. It is also very pertinent to observe that such actions which was taken up by the Respondent APDCL Authorities intrudes upon the Petitioner’s constitutional right under Article 300A of the Constitution as the same was not done by following the mandate of law. 7. The fact that the Petitioner is entitled to compensation is also not denied. It is also very pertinent to observe that such actions which was taken up by the Respondent APDCL Authorities intrudes upon the Petitioner’s constitutional right under Article 300A of the Constitution as the same was not done by following the mandate of law. 7. It is also relevant to take note of the fact that at the time when the Respondents have erected certain posts in the land of the Petitioner by violating the Petitioner’s rights, the Central Government had framed a set of Rules namely the Works of Licensees Rules, 2006 (for short ‘the Rules of 2006’) in exercise of powers under Section 176 (2)(e) as well as Section 67 (2) of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 (for short ‘the Act of 2003’). The said Rules of 2006 provided the manner in which steps are to be taken when posts are erected upon the lands belonging to person(s). Surprisingly, no such steps were taken by the Respondents herein. Rule 13 of the Rules of 2006 provided that the determination and payment of compensation to the affected persons to be paid by the licensees for making default in complying with any of the provisions of the Rules of 2006. No steps in that regard were also taken by the Respondents herein. 8. It is also very pertinent to take note of that in the lines of the Rules of 2006, the State of Assam in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 180(2)(b) as well as Section 67 (2) of the Act of 2003 had framed a set of Rules namely the Assam Electricity Works of Licenses Rules , 2019 (for short ‘the Rules of 2019’). These Rules came into effect w.e.f. 13.06.2019 as would be apparent from a reading of Rule 1(2) of the Rules of 2019. The said Rules of 2019 also provide the manner in which steps are required to be taken by the licensee. 9. This Court finds it very pertinent to take note of that similar to the Rule 13 of the Rules of 2006, the Rules of 2019 also provide a pari materia Rule i.e. Rule 13 with slight variation. The said Rule 13 being relevant is reproduced herein under. “ 13. 9. This Court finds it very pertinent to take note of that similar to the Rule 13 of the Rules of 2006, the Rules of 2019 also provide a pari materia Rule i.e. Rule 13 with slight variation. The said Rule 13 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 parties concerned. (2) Where any difference and dispute arises as to the amount of compensation determined under sub-rule (1), the matter shall be determined by the Appropriate Commission.” 10. From a perusal of the above quoted Rule, it is apparent that when the licensee makes default in complying with any of the provisions of the Rules of 2019, the licensee shall make full compensation for any loss or damage incurred by reason thereof to the person affected and the compensation is required to be determined by the District Magistrate or by parties concerned. The use of the phrase “or by parties concerned” would imply determination of compensation on mutual agreement. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 13 of the Rules of 2019 further stipulates that if there are any differences and disputes arise as regards the amount of compensation determined by the District Magistrate or by the parties concerned, the said aspect shall be determined by the Appropriate Commission. 11. It is relevant to take note of that even after coming into effect of the Rules of 2019, the Respondents have not taken any action till date. It is under such circumstances, the Petitioner has been compelled to approach this Court. 12. It is the opinion of this Court that taking into account the admitted stand of the Respondents that certain posts have been erected over the lands belonging to the Petitioner and it is apparent from the materials on record that there is a default in complying with the mandate of Rules of 2006 as well as the Rules of 2019, the Petitioners herein would be entitled to certain compensation. Under such circumstances, it is the opinion of this Court that applying Rule 13 of the Rules of 2019, the instant writ petition can be disposed of. 13. Under such circumstances, it is the opinion of this Court that applying Rule 13 of the Rules of 2019, the instant writ petition can be disposed of. 13. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands disposed of with the following observations and directions: (i) The Respondent No.5 is directed to carry out the determination as to what compensation the Petitioner herein is entitled to on account of the defaults committed by the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 upon the Petitioner’s land. In doing so, the Respondent No.5 is further directed to issue notice to both the Petitioner as well as the Respondent No.4 and complete the entire exercise within a period of 6 (six) months from today. (ii) This Court further observes that in the circumstance, the Petitioner is aggrieved by such determination of compensation, the Petitioner would have remedy in terms with Rule 13(2) of the Rules of 2019 to approach the Appropriate Commission. (iii) A copy of the instant judgment be served upon Mr. D. Nath, the learned Senior Government Advocate who represents the Respondent No.5 for complying with the directions as given herein above.