-: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.9 OF 2000 Shri Ramchandra Swarupchand Jain & Anr. : Appellants (Orig.Claimants) V/s. State of Maharashtra : Respondent (Orig.Opponent) ... Mr.P.M.Shah for the appellants. Ms Geeta Mulekar, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for the respondent. ... CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J.& S.A. BOBDE, J. DATE : NOVEMBER 18, 2008. P.C. 1. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present appeal is directed against the judgement passed by the learned single Judge dated 30.9.1998 in First Appeal No.495 of 1985 wherein the learned single Judge declined the relief and, in fact, reduced the compensation payable to the claimants, save and except the award of Rs.5,000/- as the price of the trees and the finding recorded by the trial Court was set aside and the compensation granted for land, etc., was also set aside. -: 2 :- 3. We have perused the evidence, particularly the deposition of witness no.1 Ramchandra. In his evidence, which practically remained unrebutted, it was clearly stated that he has spent Rs.25,000/- to Rs.30,000/- for construction of the well which is part of the land that has been acquired and as a result of the acquisition, prejudice has been caused to the appellants as the remaining part of the land has no regular source of irrigation as irrigation from the canal was not available throughout. The appellants thus were entitled to ensure regular irrigation facilities to their land. In his statement, the appellant has also stated "The remaining land lost its importance as it never remained irrigated bagayat land from the well water." In terms of section 23(1A) of the Land Acquisition Act, compensation on account of severing of land is specifically payable to a claimant. 4. Thus we are of the considered view that the cumulative effect of the documentary and oral evidence of the appellants has rightly been taken into consideration by the Reference Court and the judgement and order of the Reference Court thus did not call for any interference in the First Appeal by this Court. The judgement impugned in this Letters Patent Appeal is set aside and the judgement -: 3 :- and order passed by the Reference Court is confirmed. As the award is prior to 1982, the claimant would not be entitled to the benefit of section 23(1A). However, all other benefits would accrue to them. 5. Letters Patent Appeal is allowed. No order as to costs. CHIEF JUSTICE S.A. BOBDE, J.