JUDGMENT

S. PANDA, J. — This First Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 19.8.1995 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhawanipatna in MJC No.118 of 1982 in a refer¬ence under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as to “the Act”).

2. Land Acquisition Collector is the appellant. The land appertaining to plot Nos.2288 (Ac.40 decimals) and 2289 (Ac.60 decimals) was acquired in village Jaipatna in the district of Ka¬lahandi for Upper Indravati Multipurpose Project. The total area of the land acquired by the Government was Ac.1.00 dec. and the Government constructed a road on the said land. The grievance of the claimant-Madanlal Agarwal is that he was owner in possession of Ac.4.72 decimals of land under Khata No.255/243 where he was running a brick factory named and styled as M/s.Arya Bricks Factory. He had invested a huge amount of money in the said brick kiln, chimney and also for foundation of the office and residence at the site.

3. The Land Acquisition Collector determined the compensa¬tion at Rs.2584.00 ps. only towards market value of one acre of land which was acquired. The claimant being aggrieved by the said award, filed his objection which was referred under Section 18 of the Act.

4. Claimant in his objection asserted that owing to con¬struction of road on the acquired land, his remaining lands became useless and the brick factory was damaged and this fact had to be taken into consideration while determining the market value of the acquired land. The learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) earlier considering the entire facts had passed an award on 19.12.1984 directing the Special Land Acquisition Col¬lector to pay compensation for the entire land measuring an area of Ac.4.72 decimals at the rate of Rs.2500/- per acre. Further, it was held that the claimant is entitled to Rs.38,000/- for the damage accrued on the factory and chimney and Rs.1000/- for the office and house. The Land Acquisition Collector preferred an appeal against the said award before this Court and this Court vide order dated 31.1.1995 passed in First Appeal No.87 of 1985 remanded the matter to the referral Court for fresh adjudication and directed that opportunity shall be given to the parties to adduce further evidence on the limited question, i.e., whether the remaining lands of the claimant have been injuriously affect¬ed because of the severance. In pursuance of the said direction, claimant adduced further evidence by examining himself along with two other witnesses. On the other hand, Land Acquisition Officer examined Zone Officer, Land Acquisition Upper Indravati Project as P.W.1. Claimant in his evidence stated that the authority constructed the road by digging earth from the remaining part of his land and by that process the level of the land became low and it submerged in the river water and for the said reason, his remaining land measuring Ac.3.72 decimals has become totally useless. The said evidence is corroborated by two other witnesses examined on behalf of the claimant and in cross-examination, nothing substantial has been brought out from their mouth to discredit their version. Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) after considering the evidence held that P.W.3’s evidence in¬spired no confidence of the Court and further held that admitted¬ly one acre of land of the claimant has been acquired by the Land Acquisition Collector for Upper Indravati Multi-purpose Project for construction of the road and it was not disputed that the land was running in the middle path of the claimant’s land measuring Ac.4.72 decimals as a result of which the remaining lands have been split up in two parts and the claimant is enti¬tled to compensation as per 3rd clause of Section 23(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. He has determined the market value of the acquired land upon proof of severance of land from a large area and the value of remaining lands got deprecated and a pro¬spective buyer will pay less