C.W.P. No.3855 of 1985 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No.3855 of 1985 Date of Decision: 23.1.2008 Hazura Singh .....Petitioner Vs. Mandi Dabwali Improvement Trust,Dabwali and others ...Respondents .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA **** Present : Mr.J.R. Mittal, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Kashmir Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.S.C. Sibal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. V.S. Rana,Advocate for respondent no.1. Mr.Ajay Chaudhary, DAG, Haryana. ... RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral) Challenge in this petition is, to an award dated 16.2.1985 passed by the Tribunal for Improvement Trust, Mandi Dabwali, whereby the market value assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector was maintained and the reference filed by the petitioner was dismissed. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner produced cogent and relevant evidence, in the shape of depositions of PW-1 Sahaj Singh, PW-2 Ramesh Chander, Junior Engineer, PW-3 Hazura Singh, PW-4 Chanan Singh, PW-5 Nand Kishore Sharma and the petitioner himself, so as to establish that the market value assessed by the Collector i.e. Rs.10/- per sq.yard did not reflect the true market value of the acquired land. It is further submitted that the learned Tribunal, committed an error of law, in discarding the assessment orders Exs.P-1 to P-16, on the ground that they C.W.P. No.3855 of 1985 2 do not relate to the land. It is contended that the assessment orders, refer to the rent received by the petitioner for the acquired premises and the learned Tribunal should have proceeded to assess market value upon the said annual rent. The failure of the learned Tribunal, to adopt such a course renders the impugned order illegal. It is further submitted that as the Tribunal pronounced its award on 16.2.1985, the petitioner is entitled to solatium and interest, as provided under Section 23(2) and Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner did not produce any documentary evidence in support of his claim that the market value assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector was inadequate. The witnesses produced by the petitioner deposed orally, as to the prevailing market value and, therefore, their depositions were rightly rejected by the learned Tribunal. As regards the assessment orders, Exs. P-1 to P-16, it is asserted that the learned Tribunal rightly rejected them, as they do not relate to the land and even otherwise, no evidence was adduced in support of the rent referred to therein. As regards the question of solatium and interest, counsel for the respondent does not deny the correctness of the assertions put forth by counsel for the petitioner. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. As noticed by the learned Tribunal, the petitioner did not produce any evidence in the shape of sale deeds, to establish the market value of the acquired land. The evidence adduced by the petitioner were the oral depositions of PWs-1 to PWs-5, who deposed as to the existing market value. The learned Tribunal rightly discarded their depositions in C.W.P. No.3855 of 1985 3 the absence of any documentary evidence to substantiate their oral deposition. As regards the assessment orders Exs.P-1 to P-16, the learned Tribunal did not commit any error of law, by declining to place reliance thereon. Exs.P-1 to P-6 are assessment orders with respect to house tax. The petitioner was required to establish the correctness of the entries, in these documents by producing rent notes/lease deeds or if these were available, by producing the tenants to establish the rate of rent paid. Even otherwise, the said documents do not relate to the land and, therefore, were rightly rejected. As regards the question of solatium and interest, as the Tribunal pronounced its award on 16.2.1985, the petitioner would be entitled to receive, in addition to the market value assessed, solatium @ 30% and interest thereon @ 9% for the first year and @ 15% p.a. thereafter for the period that amount remained unpaid, in view of a judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nagpur Improvement Trust V. Vasant Rao, AIR 2002 SC 3499, However, any amount that has been received by the petitioner, would be adjusted. With the aforementioned modification in the impugned award, the present petition is dismissed, with no order as to costs. 23.1.2008 ( RAJIVE BHALLA ) GS JUDGE