JUDGMENT : DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J. 1. The petitioner has approached this Court impugning the Award issued by the Competent Authority for Land Acquisition (CALA for short) appointed under the provisions of the National Highways Act (‘NH Act’ for short) with respect to certain extents of property acquired from her. 2. The petitioner says that even though a portion of her property, along with portions of a building thereon has been acquired, the CALA has not taken into account the loss suffered by her on account of the fact that the balance portion of the building has become useless; and therefore, that she has preferred Ext.P7 request before the said Authority to correct the Award appropriately. She, therefore, prays that 3rd respondent be directed to take up and consider Ext.P7 and further that until such time as the proceedings are completed, demolition of the building be directed to be deferred. 3. I have heard Smt. M.A. Vaheeda Babu - learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri. Mathews K. Philip - learned Standing Counsel for the National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) and Smt. Surya Binoy - learned Senior Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondents 2 and 3. 4. Sri. Mathews K. Philip submitted that this Writ Petition is not maintainable because, once the Award has been issued, the CALA became functus officio. He relied on the judgment of this Court in Usman Arif vs. The Project Director [W.P. (C) No. 1996/2021] in support and contended that, therefore, the petitioner must approach the competent Arbitrator under the provisions of Section 3G(5) of the ‘NH Act’ by filing proper application. 5. Smt. Surya Binoy - learned Senior Government Pleader, adopted the afore submissions of Sri. Mathews K. Philip, adding that CALA has taken into account all germane and relevant inputs while issuing the Award. She submitted that, therefore, the petitioner cannot seek correction of the said Award, as she has sought for in Ext.P7 - there being no error in it and that she will have to invoke other appropriate statutory remedies, if she requires enhancement of the compensation awarded. 6. In reply, Smt. Vaheeda Babu submitted that her client has approached this Court because, going by Section 3G(7) of the ‘NH Act’ the damage for severance appears to be confined only for the land and not qua the building thereon. 6. In reply, Smt. Vaheeda Babu submitted that her client has approached this Court because, going by Section 3G(7) of the ‘NH Act’ the damage for severance appears to be confined only for the land and not qua the building thereon. She submitted that, therefore, it is necessary that this Court direct the CALA itself to correct the Award. 7. It is ineluctable from the afore submissions that the petitioner's apprehension is that since Section 3G(7) specifies only determination of the damage on account of severance of the acquired land from the balance, she would not be able to claim it qua the building standing thereon. However, the manner of Section 3G(7) of the NH Act, particularly clause (b) thereof, does not constrain the scenario as feared by the petitioner. The said provision reads as under: 7. The competent Authority of the arbitrator while determining the amount under sub-section (1) or sub-section (5), as the case may be, shall take into consideration: (a) the market value of the land on the date of publication of the notification under Section 3-A. (b) the damage, if any, sustained by the person interested at the time of taking possession of the land, by reason of the severing of such land from other land. 8. The afore extracted statutory mandate render it refutable that what is being assessed is the damage sustained by the person interested in the acquired property on account of the severance of a portion from it. Hence, the question is not whether there is damage to the land or the building, but that which is sustained by the owner, or the person interested, on account of its severance. Apodictically, merely because the words “by reason of the severing of such land from the other land” is used in Section 3G(7)(b), one cannot render an interpretation that the consequences caused to the building on account of such cannot be assessed or granted to the owner or the person interested in the same. 9. I am, therefore, left without any shred of doubt that when damages under Section 3G(7) is assessed by the CALA, or by the Arbitrator, as the case may be, they are enjoined and expected to consider other aspects, including the impact to the building or such other structures on the property, on account of the severance of a portion of it, acquired under the notification. 10. 10. In fact, the afore is expressly admitted to by the NHAI and by the learned Senior Government Pleader and I do not, therefore, see any reason for the petitioner to be apprehensive that her contention regarding the total damage caused her on account of the severance of the acquired land from the balance, will not be considered by the competent Authority under Section 3G(5), if an application for the same is made. 11. In the afore circumstances, I order this Writ Petition, granting liberty to the petitioner to move an appropriate application before the District Collector - who is also the competent Arbitrator - under the provisions of Section 3G(5) of the ‘NH Act’ and if this is done within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, the said Authority will consider the same, after affording her an opportunity of being heard, adverting specifically to the provisions of Section 3G(7)(b) of the said Act, leading to an assessment of the damage on account of the severance of the land and portion of the building from the acquired portion; thus culminating in an appropriate order/necessary action thereon, as expeditiously as is possible but not later than four months from the date of receipt of the application of the petitioner. 12. Needless to say, since the value of the building may require to be assessed under the ambit of Section 3G(7)(b) of the ‘NH Act’ I direct the District Collector to decide whether such a course is necessary, before the demolition of the same is permitted. 13. It goes without saying that if the petitioner does not approach the competent Authority within the time as ordered above, all further action based on the Award can be taken forward.