JUDGMENT : This appeal is preferred by the original claimant seeking modification in the judgment and award passed by the 4th Adhoc Additional District Judge, Amravati in L.A.C. No. 218/2003 for 27/09/2006 seeking enhancement of the compensation amount. 2. Facts which are relevant for deciding this appeal are to be extracted as follows : The land bearing survey no.14/3 admeasuring 1.62 HR of village Ghol, was owned and possessed by appellant. It came to be acquired by the respondents for the project of Yenas Percolation Tank. The Land Acquisition Officer vide award dated 18/10/1999 granted the total compensation of Rs.40,014/- at the rate of Rs.24,700/- per hector. 3. Being aggrieved and not satisfied with the meager amount of compensation, appellant approached the reference court conteding inter alia that the Land Acquisition Officer has not granted any amount towards the construction of the pipeline which was to the extent of 300 meters. Moreover, compensation granted at the rate of Rs.24,700/- per hector is also inadequate and it should be at the rate of Rs.1,00,000/- per hector. Further it was submitted that the land was furtile and appellant was taking irrigated crops and earning income of Rs.25,000/- to Rs.30,000/- per acre, and hence, the amount granted by the Land Acquisition Officer was not fair and reasonable amount of compensation. It was also contended in the petition before the reference court that as a result of acquisition of this land, there is no access to his other adjacent lands, and therefore, he is entitled to get Rs.5,00,000/- in lumpsum to purchase the access. Thus, total amount of compensation claimed before the Tribunal was Rs.17,77,150/- excluding the amount of compensation received to the tune of Rs.66,424/- that is Rs.17,10,726/-. 4. This claim petition came to be resisted by the respondents contending inter alia that the amount of compensation paid to the appellant is just and reasonable and it is arrived on the basis of existing market price of the said land. It was denied that the appellant was taking irrigated crops therein. It was also denied that she is entitled for compensation under other heads. 5. Before the reference court, the appellant examined herself and three witnesses. 6. On appreciation of their evidence, the reference court was pleased to enhance the compensation as regards the acquired land to the extent of Rs.65,000/- per hector in place of Rs.24,700/- per hector. It was also denied that she is entitled for compensation under other heads. 5. Before the reference court, the appellant examined herself and three witnesses. 6. On appreciation of their evidence, the reference court was pleased to enhance the compensation as regards the acquired land to the extent of Rs.65,000/- per hector in place of Rs.24,700/- per hector. As regards the other heads under which the appellant has claimed the compensation, the reference court was pleased to reject those claims. 7. Being agrrieved thereof, this appeal is preferred. In this appeal, I have heard learned counsel for appellant and learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents. 8. As regards the first contention raised by the appellant that the market value of the acquired land is not assessed properly either by the Land Acquisition Officer or by the reference court, it should be seen that appellant herself had led the evidence of two witnesses, namely, PW2 Ashok and PW3 Shanini. As regards PW2 Ashok, he has admitted in his cross-examination that he has not produced any document to show that in the year 1994 market value of the land was Rs.75,000/- to Rs.80,000/- per acre. As regards PW3 Shanini, she has admitted that in the sale deed (Exh.45) the price of the land is shown as Rs.65,934/- per hector. She has also admitted that there is well in her field, and therefore, her field is also irrigated. In such situation, the contention of learned counsel for appellant that trial court has not appreciated the evidence on record properly cannot be accepted. It is pertinent to note that the reference court has calculated the compensation at the rate of Rs.65,000/- per hector, which was the rate quoted by PW3 Shanini for her land. Even the reference court on the basis of the evidence adduced by the appellant herself, enhanced the compensation for the acquired land from Rs.24,700/- per hector to Rs.65,000/- per hector. In considered opinion of this court, therefore, no interference is warranted in the said amount of compensation, which is based on the evidence adduced before the reference court and there is nothing pointed out by the appellant that the said amount is meager or not fair amount of compensation. 9. In considered opinion of this court, therefore, no interference is warranted in the said amount of compensation, which is based on the evidence adduced before the reference court and there is nothing pointed out by the appellant that the said amount is meager or not fair amount of compensation. 9. As regards the amount of compensation claimed by the appellant towards the construction of pipeline, as rightly held by the reference court, absolutely no evidence was produced on record by the appellant to that effect, and hence, the claim to that effect is rightly rejected by the reference court. 10. The main grievance of the appellant is in respect of the reference court not considering or granting any claim of compensation towards the alleged damage caused to her as the access to her remaining land is cut off on account of the acquisition of the land in dispute. It is submitted that appellant has produced on record the evidence to show that on account of the acquisition of the land, her other land bearing survey no.14/2 has become land locked and having no access at all. To prove this fact, appellant has examined one witness by name, Brijesh Tiwari, who has prepared the map after going through J.M.R. Sheet and according to him, the remaining portion of survey no.14 is locked from all the sides and no access remains to the other land. Appellant herself has also deposed that her land bearing survey no.14/2 is now having no access and she will have to purchase the access for the said land. 11. It is true that, there is no discussion on this point in the impugned judgment of the reference court and reference court has not awarded any amount for the same. The provisions of Section 23(1) clause (3) of the Land Acquisition Act provides that in determining the amount of compensation to be awarded for land acquired under this Act, the court shall take into consideration the damages, if any, sustained by the person interested at the time of Collector taking possession of the land by seperation of acquired said land from his other land. Therefore, this clause makes it clear that what is required to be proved by the claimant to get compensation under this case or clause is that he has sustained the damage on account of seperation of such acquired land from her other land. 12. Therefore, this clause makes it clear that what is required to be proved by the claimant to get compensation under this case or clause is that he has sustained the damage on account of seperation of such acquired land from her other land. 12. In this case, the burden was obviously on the appellant to show that she had sustained such damage on account of seperation of acquired land from other land bearing survey no.14/2. Though the appellant has produced the evidence on record to show that on account of acquisition of survey no.14/3, her other land bearing survey no.14/2 has become land locked, she has not produced any evidence to show that she had sustained damages because of it. She has also not produced any evidence to show that what will be approximate amount of consideration for which she had to purchase the access from the adjacent land. Merely stating that she has to incur the amount of Rs.5,00,000/- for purchasing the access from other adjacent land, is not sufficient. There has to be evidence to that effect, as it can be seen even on bare perusal that the amount of compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- claimed on this count, is exorbitant and high and it cannot be considersed as fair. Moreover, if one considers the fact that the land of appellant is acquired by the State, appellant can approach the Mamlatdar Court for access to her other land. Only upon succeeding in proving that she was unable to get such access even before the Mamlatdar Court and she has to purchase the said access and therefore, she has sustained any damage, she will be entitled for the compensation amount under such head. However, no such evidence is produced on record, therefore, her claim in that respect is also required to be rejected. 13. The last submission advanced by learned counsel for appellant is that in this case the possession of the acquired land was taken on 05/04/1994, whereas the notification under section 4 was issued on 14/03/1994. It is submitted that the reference court has awarded the interest from the date of award and it should have been from the date of taking possession. However, in this respect also legal position is now well settled by the decision of the Full Bench of this court in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. It is submitted that the reference court has awarded the interest from the date of award and it should have been from the date of taking possession. However, in this respect also legal position is now well settled by the decision of the Full Bench of this court in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Kailash Shiva Rangari, 2016(3) Mh.L.J. 457, wherein it was clearly held that,- “33(a) If the possession is taken before the notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act is published and/or before the award is passed, the landowner would be entitled for interest as per section 34 necessarily from the date of passing of the award under section 11 of the said Act, except in cases where the possession is taken in accordance with section 17 of the said Act, and in that situation only, the provision of section 34 of the said Act shall start operating from the date of possession.” 14. In the present case, no evidence is adduced to show that the possession was taken in accordance with section 17 of the Act. In such situation, appellant become entitled to get interest from the date of award. 15. As a result, the impugned judgment and order passed by the reference court does not call for any interference in this appeal. 16. Appeal holds no merits, hence, stands dismissed with no order as to costs.