JUDGMENT TULZAPURKAR AG. C. J .-[His Lordship, after disposing of first Appeals Nos. 235 of 1964 and 279 of 1964, proceeded]. Turning to the appeal filed by the State on the paint of enhanced compensation that has been awarded by the learned Judge in regard to severance and injurious affection, we may state that the precise contention that was urged by Mr. Gambhirwala was to this effect: He pointed out that after notice under section 9 was served upon the claimants in land reference No. 4-7 of 1962, the claimants filed a written statement in response to that notice, copy whereof has been produced at exh. 33 on the record. It was pointed out by him that in this written statement produced at exh. 33 no specific amount had been claimed by the claimants as and by way of damages on account of severance or injurious affection. All that the claimants stated was that a piece of land admeasuring about 1 acre or so was being severed due to canal passing through the land and that the same will not be useful for non-agricultural as well as agricultural purposes and that they may be paid reasonable compensation and severance charges and injurious affection. It was contended that under section 9 (2) of the Act it was obligatory upon the claimants "to state the nature of their respective interests in the land and the amount and particulars of there claims to compensation for such interests" and since no specific amounts were claimed as and by way of damages for either severance or injurious affection, the right to claim enhanced amount than the one awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer was barred under section 25 (2) of the Act. This contention was raised before the learned Judge and the learned Judge has dealt with it as follows: "However, as has bee ~ laid down in the case of Secretary of State v. F. E. Dinshaw, it would not be necessary for the claimant to specify definite amount of compensation in respect of each sub-head in respect of which a claim for enhanced compensation is made, In view of this ruling, it cannot be held that the claim of the claimants for enhancement of compensation is barred under section 25 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act." In other words, following the decision of the Sind Court referred to above the learned Judge took the view that it was not necessary for the claimants to specify a definite amount of compensation under each specific sub-head like "severance" or "injurious affection" and that absence of making such specific claim did not have the effect of barring it right to enhanced compensation under the said heads under section 25 (2) of the Act. Mr. Gambhirwala for the State has invited our attention to a decision of this Court in the case of Special Land Acquisition Officer v. Kalyanji and he contended that a contrary view has been taken by this Court in that decision and the view taken by the Sind Court in Sccy. of State v. Dinshaw2 has been expressly dissented from. He, therefore, urged that in view of the decision of Justice Tendolkar in Special Land Acquisition Officer v. Kalyanji it should be held that the claimants could not claim any higher compensation under the heads "severance" or "injurious affection" than the one that has been awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer and that such right to enhanced compensation was barred under section 25 (2) of the Act. There is no doubt that the view taken by Justice Tendolkar in Kalyanji's case is in terms contrary to the view taken by the Sind Court in Dinshaw's case and there is also no doubt that the view expressed in the Bombay decision should prevail with us. However, having regard to the manner in which compensation had been claimed by the claimants under the heads "severance" or "injurious affection" in their written statement exh. However, having regard to the manner in which compensation had been claimed by the claimants under the heads "severance" or "injurious affection" in their written statement exh. 33 and having regard to the further fact that the question of compensation under these sub-heads had been considered by the Special Land Acquisition Officer while making his award, we are of the view that the Bombay decision is clearly distinguishable on the facts of the case. In Special Land Acquisition Officer v. Kalyanji while submitting the claim for compensation before the Special Land Acquisition Officer the claimants after citing various instances of sale of land had merely asked for price for the land at the flat rate of Rs. 35 per sq. yd. and there was not even the remotest suggestion either in the claim put forward or even in the report of the architects of the claimants that had been forwarded, that the claimants had suffered any damages on account of severance or injurious affection. Further, since no such claim under such specific head of "severance or injurious affection" was put forward, there was no occasion for the Special Land Acquisition Officer the consider that item of compensation to the claimants and it was for the first time when the land reference was being heard before the Court that the claimants sought to lead evidence seeking to establish damages said to have been suffered by there on account of severance or injurious affection and it was at that stage that an objection was raised on behalf of the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bombay City that no such evidence should be allowed to be led on behalf of the claimants and that objection was upheld by Justice Tendolkar precisely on the ground that if the claimant had failed to make such a claim for damages under any of the heads "secondly" to "sixthly" enumerated in section 23 of the Act, it was not open to the Collector of his own motion to consider whether the claimant had sustained damage under any of the sub-heads "secondly" to "sixthly'' described in section 23 and since even the Collector had not done any adjudication as regards such dam ales sustained by the claimant no question could arise of the claimant coming to Court on a reference and claiming that such damage has been sustained by them. After examining the scheme of the relevant sections of the Land Acquisition Act Justice Tendolkar took the view that if a claimant failed to make such a claim before the Collector it would not be open to the Collector to consider of his own motion any such claim much less would it be open to the claimant to do so before the Court after a reference had been made to the Court and in coming to this conclusion the learned Judge has relied upon the language of section 9(2) which categorically requires all persons interested to appear before the Collector and "to state the nature of their respective interests in the land and the amount and particulars of their claims to compensation for such interests". In the present case, it cannot be suggested that the claimants had either refused to make such claim within the meaning of section 25 (2) of the Act so as to raise the bar contemplated by that provision In exh. 33 which was the written statement filed by the claimants in pursuance of the notice served upon them under section 9 this is what the claimants had stated: "Secondly a piece of land about 1 acre or so is being severed due to the canal passing through the land which will not be useful for non-agricultural as well as agricultural use, we may be paid reasonable compensation and severance charges and injurious affection." There is, therefore, no doubt that while preferring the claim before the Special Land Acquisition Officer the claimants had claimed compensation by way of damages under the sub-heads "severance" and "injurious affection" and all that they had stated was that reasonable compensation by way of damages under these two heads should be awarded to them. It is true that the quantum of damages under either or" the two heads had not been specifically mentioned, but the two sub-heads under which damages could be claimed had been clearly mentioned. What is more, even the Special Land Acquisition Officer had considered this claim that was put forward under the heads of severance and injurious affection. It is true that the quantum of damages under either or" the two heads had not been specifically mentioned, but the two sub-heads under which damages could be claimed had been clearly mentioned. What is more, even the Special Land Acquisition Officer had considered this claim that was put forward under the heads of severance and injurious affection. In paragraph 8 of his award the Special Land Acquisition Officer has touched this question of severance relating to 371/2 gunthas which had been left out while acquiring I acre and 5 gunthas out of survey No. 148/1 plus 2 and he has taken the view that out of the 371/2- gunthas, 21/2 gunthas in the north-west corner of the survey number could form an independent building plot fronting on the road in the north and it was only in respect of the remaining area of 35 gunthas which had been rendered useless for carrying out any building activity thereon that the claimants would be entitle to claim damages on account of such severance. He has further proceeded to award that compensation by adopting the method of taking the difference between the value of those 35 gunthas as non-agricultural land and the value of those 35 gunthas as agricultural land and on that basis he awarded Rs. 6,125 on account of severance and injurious affection. In other words, except for non-mentioning of the specific amount or quantum, reasonable compensation under the heads of severance and injurious affection had been claimed and the same was dealt with by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. It was urged by Mr. Paranjape before us that in these circumstances it would be open to the claimants to contend on a reference being made to the Court that the quantum awarded was not reasonable and the claimant was entitled to a reasonable quantum which could be higher than the one awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. There is some force in this contention of Mr. Paranjape. There is some force in this contention of Mr. Paranjape. In any case, two things are very clear that unlike the Bombay decision the sub-head of severance and injurious affection had been specifically mentioned in the claim that was lodged pursuant to the notice under section 9 (2) and further unlike the Bombay decision the Special Land Acquisition Officer had dealt with this aspect of the matter in his award and since it is clear that it is open to the claimants on a reference made to the Court under section 18 to file his objections to the award made by the Land Acquisition Officer, it will be open to the claimant to object to the quantum that has been awarded under the head severance or injurious affection on the ground that the amount awarded was not a reasonable amount. In this view of the matter it seems to us clear that the instant case is clearly distinguishable on facts from the case in Kalyanji's case. In any event, we are of the view that the power conferred upon the Court under section 25 (3) should be exercised in favour of the claimants on whose behalf an oral application was made by Mr. Paranjape that the lapse on the part of the claimants in not indicating the specific amount of compensation claimed under the head severance or injurious affection should be condoned. Mr. Paranjape stated before us that since the sub-heads of "severance" and "injurious affection" had been mentioned in the statement of claim filed before the Special Land Acquisition Officer in response to the notice under section 9 (2) it cannot be said that the claimants had either deliberately refused to make a claim or omitted to make a claim under these subheads. He also pointed out that in the circumstances of the case it was not possible for the claimants to indicate the specific amount and therefore reasonable amount on account of severance and injurious affection had been claimed. He also pointed out that in the circumstances of the case it was not possible for the claimants to indicate the specific amount and therefore reasonable amount on account of severance and injurious affection had been claimed. He pointed out that the claimants could not properly or precisely assess the damages that could be claimed under these two heads and therefore the lapse on their part should be condoned In the circumstance's, we feel that the omission was not without sufficient reason and therefore we condone the lapse and allow the claimants to make such a claim for enhanced compensation under the head severance charges and injurious affection. 2. On the question of quantum of damages, Mr. Paranjape pointed out before us that the learned Judge had enhanced the compensation under these heads only to Rs. 10,500, but he urged that even such compensation for severance and injurious affection in respect of 35 gunthas which had been left out the same having been rendered useless ought to have been granted at the rate of Rs. 65,000 per acre. Since, however, we have taken the view that even for the lands acquired the fair compensation would be at the rate or Rs. 15,000 per acre, we do not see any reason for interfering with the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Judge under the sub-head severance and injurious affection. We would therefore confirm the learned Judge's order that a sum of Rs. 10,500 should be awarded to the claimant in land reference No. 47 of 1962 for 35 gunthas which had been left out under the head severance and injurious affection. 3. In the result, the State appeal being First Appeal No. 355 of 1964 is also dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed.