Judgement LODHA, C. J. :- This is an appeal by the Collector of Kamrup under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 against the award by the Assistant District Judge No. 1, Kamrup dated 17-1-1970 whereby he awarded the following items to the respondent by way of compensation of the land acquired : (i) Rs. 2,500/- on account of the price of the land measuring 5 Bighas; (ii) Rs. 2,000/- on account of two houses built on the land; and (iii) Rs. 7,000/- on account of the price of 70,000 bricks lying on the land. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant has raised objection as to the last item of Rs. 7,000/- only. His contention is that this item of compensation does not fall under any of the clauses of Section 23 which deals with matters to be considered in determining the compensation. It is urged that the bricks lying on the land cannot be considered as a part of the land nor the price of the bricks can be awarded by way of damages as it is not the respondents case that he sustained damage at the time of Collectors taking possession of the land by reason of the acquisition injuriously affecting his other property. 3. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent submits that the item of Rs. 7,000/- is covered by clause fourthly of Section 23(1) of the Land Acquisition Act which provides that the damage, if any, sustained by the person interested, at the time of the Collectors taking possession of the land, by reason of the acquisition injuriously affecting his other property, moveable or immovable, can be taken into consideration. 4. The only evidence in this connection is that of the respondent himself. He has stated as P.W. 1 that about 70,000 bricks were there in the brick field and the price of the bricks was Rs. 100/- to Rs. 150/- per thousand. He further goes on to state that his business in bricks had been closed due to acquisition. It is not his case that he was not allowed to remove the bricks at the time of taking possession of the land by the Collector or that the bricks were damaged at the time of taking possession. His grievance is that his business in bricks had been closed due to acquisition. It is not his case that he was not allowed to remove the bricks at the time of taking possession of the land by the Collector or that the bricks were damaged at the time of taking possession. His grievance is that his business in bricks had been closed due to acquisition. There is no provision in the Land Acquisition Act for awarding damages for closure of any business due to acquisition of land. There is nothing on the record to show that he was prevented from removing the bricks or that the bricks had been damaged at the time of taking possession. Consequently he is not entitled to claim any amount on account of the price of the bricks, which he could have removed or for ought we know, he might have removed. In any case, he is not entitled to get this amount of Rupees 7,000/- on account of the price of the bricks. 5. We, therefore, allow this appeal in part and modify the award made by the lower court by deleting the amount of Rs. 7,000/-. The respondent will be entitled to get Rs. 4,500/- (Rupees four thousand five hundred) only. In the circumstance there will be no order as to the costs. Appeal partly allowed.