Judgment : Heard learned Counsel. 2. The learned Reference Court by judgment dated 27/09/2004 has awarded severance charges to the respondent/applicant at half the rate of compensation payable. 3. There is no dispute that applicant's land surveyed under Survey No.288/21 and 22 situated in village Nuvem was acquired by virtue of notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 published on Gazette dated 21/03/1990 for the construction of D-1 distribution canal for Selaulim Irrigation Project. 4. Applicant's property was accessible from National Highway 17. The said acquisition has divided the applicant's property in two parcels, as depicted on the plan at page 50. The parcel to the right remains connected to the National Highway while the parcel to the left admeasuring about 1700 square metres has become land locked without any access. 5. The Land Acquisition Officer has awarded compensation to the applicant's at the rate of Rs.32 per square metre in respect of survey no.288/21 and Rs.25/-per square metre in respect of Survey No.288/22. The said compensation has not been enhanced by the learned Reference Court, but the learned Reference Court has observed and, in my view, rightly that the appellants' engineer had not at all touched the aspect of severance thereby impliedly admitting that the applicant's land was severed. The learned Reference Court has concluded that on account of the acquisition, the unacquired area has become completely inaccessible and that the applicant had not only pleaded this fact but also proved the same by acceptable evidence and, therefore, the learned Reference Court has granted severance charges for 1,700 square metres at half the rate. 6. That applicant's part of the property admeasuring 1700 square metres has become land locked is a fact which is not disputed. How the applicant will make use of that property either for agriculture or otherwise, without having access is not known. The value of that land has certainly diminished to the applicant and that requires to be compensated. No comparable case has been cited to reduce the percentage. On the facts of the case, therefore, in my view, the grant of severance charges at half the rate on account of applicant's balance land becoming inaccessible cannot be faulted. 7. I find there is no merit in this appeal and, consequently, the same is dismissed.