JUDGMENT B.N. Patnaik, J. 1. State has preferred this appeal against the judgment in L. A.R. No. 176/84on the file of the Sub Judge, Pathanamthitta. By the impugned judgment,learned sub judge has awarded an enhanced compensation of Rs.10,000/- perare as against the award of Rs.4,427/- per are by the Land Acquisition Officer.He has also awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for severance ofland though the Land Acquisition Officer did not award any suchcompensation. 2. An extent of 10.60 acres of dry land in Sy.No.340/14 of Thonnalloor Villagein Adoor Taluk was acquired for the purpose of Kallada Irrigation Project.Notification under S.3(1) of Kerala Land Acquisition Act was published on27-8-1981. Possession of the land was taken on 14-7-1982. Land AcquisitionOfficer passed the award on 6-1-1982. 3. Learned Government Pleader has contended that the award ofcompensation is excessive and compensation awarded on account ofseverance of land is unwarranted. 4. The claimant has stated that the acquired land is situated in the centre ofPandalam town. There are several public and private institutions, educationalinstitutions, places of worship, banks, commercial and industrial concernswithin the radius of 1 km. of the acquired land. The acquired property has alsoa road frontage on three sides. Under the same notification, Ext.A3 wasacquired for the same purpose. The land in Exts.A1 and A2 documents arecomparable with the acquired land. Ext.R1 document on which the LandAcquisition Officer based his finding does not show that the land therein iscomparable with the acquired land and as such cannot be relied upon. The claimant did not make any claim for compensation for the severance ofland either before the Land Acquisition Officer or in the reference court. 5. The learned Sub Judge rejected Exts.R1, A1 and A2 documents as thelands mentioned therein are not comparable with the acquired land. Herejected the valuation given in Ext. A3 judgment on the ground that it is basedon Ext. A2 document, which, in his opinion, is not the proper document to berelied upon for the purpose of assessing the land value. However, by takinginto consideration the importance and the location of the land, he came to theconclusion that the land value would he Rs. 10,000/- per acre. So far as the award of compensation for the land value is concerned, we findthat there is no infirmity in the finding of the learned Sub Judge. He has rightlyrejected Exts. A1, A2, A3 and R3 documents by giving cogent reasons. 10,000/- per acre. So far as the award of compensation for the land value is concerned, we findthat there is no infirmity in the finding of the learned Sub Judge. He has rightlyrejected Exts. A1, A2, A3 and R3 documents by giving cogent reasons. Thefinding on this aspect is neither perverse nor unreasonable. 6. So far as the award of compensation for severance of the land isconcerned, we find that learned Sub Judge has committed an error of law.Although no evidence was adduced to prove the damage and no suchcompensation was claimed by the claimant either under S.9 of the LandAcquisition Act or in the reference petition filed by him, learned Sub Judge suomotu granted it. Learned counsel for the claimant contended that the court hasthe jurisdiction to grant it if it is satisfied that the severance of land resulted inthe unacquired portion becoming practically useless thereby lowering itsmarket value considerably, even if no specific evidence is produced on thisfact. We are unable to accept this contention for the following reason. 7. Clauses 3 and 4 of S.23(i) of the Land Acquisition Act lays down as follows: "23. Matters to be considered in determining compensation. (i) In determining the amount of compensation to be awarded for land acquiredunder this Act. the Court shall take into consideration First, ...... Secondly, ....... Thirdly, the damage (if any) sustained by the person interested, at the time ofthe Collector's taking possession of the land, by reason of severing such landfrom his other land; Fourthly, the damage (if any) sustained by the person interested at the time ofthe Collector's taking possession of the land, by reason of the acquisitioninjuriously affecting his other property, movable or immovable, in any othermanner, or his earnings; Fifthly ....... Sixthly ......" It appears that compensation for severance of land or by reason of the factthat acquisition has injuriously affected his other property, can be awardedonly when the claimant has suffered some damage on account of it. In boththe clauses it is clearly laid down that compensation can be awarded only ifany damage is sustained. In the absence of any such evidence or pleading,there is no scope for the court to infer if any such damage was sustained.Facts must be proved to show the extent of damage sustained so as to enablethe court to quantify it. Compensation under this head cannot be calculated bymere guess. In the absence of any such evidence or pleading,there is no scope for the court to infer if any such damage was sustained.Facts must be proved to show the extent of damage sustained so as to enablethe court to quantify it. Compensation under this head cannot be calculated bymere guess. We, therefore, set aside the award of compensation of Rs.10,000/- under this head. 8. For the reasons stated above, the appeal is allowed in part. The award ofcompensation of Rs.10,000/- together with proportionate interest underClause.3 and 4 of sub-s.(1) of S.23 of the Land Acquisition Act is set aside. Inother respects, the judgment is confirmed. No costs.