Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 1560 of 2001
PETITIONER:
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND M ANDAL REVENUE OFFICER
RESPONDENT:
V. NARASA1AH
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 27/02/2001
BENCH:
K.T. THOMAS & R.P. SETHI & B.N. AGRAWAL
JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT
2001 (2) SCR 141
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by THOMAS, .1. Leave granted.
In a land acquisition case a division bench of the High Court of Andhra
Pradesh enhanced land value to Rupees seventy five thousand and odd per
acre over and above the market value fixed by the reference court. For
making the aforesaid enhancement the division bench of the High Court look
into consideration two sale-deeds the copy of which were marked without
exam-ining any body connected with the transaction recorded in the
instruments. Appellant is actually the State of Andhra pardesh though in
the cause-title it is shown as the Land Acquisition Officer concerned of
the State. Appellant contended that the High Court should not have taken
into account the sale price shown in the above mentioned two sale-deeds as
the claimant did not examine the vendee or the vendor or anybody else
connected with the sale. There arc two decisions of this Court which
propounded a legal position consistent with the above stand of the
appellant State. They are Inder Singh v. UOI. [1993] 3 SCC 240 and P. Ram
Reddy v. Land Acquisition Officer, Hyderabad, [1995] 2 SCC 305.
As the said decisions were rendered by two judges bench a plea was made
before us by Sri Vidya Sagar. learned counsel arguing for the respondent
that the aforesaid legal position may be reconsidered. Learned counsel sub-
mitted that Section 51A has been incorporated in the Land Acquisition Act
1894 (for short the "the LA Act") specifically for obviating the insistence
for examination of anyone connected with the transactions mentioned in such
sale-deeds if the court has to consider such transactions as evidence in
the case.
The facts are very simple. A land having an extent of 7.35 acres at
Bheemagal Town has been acquired under the L.A. Act for a public purpose.
Notification under Section 4(1) of the said Act was issued on 11.5.1984.
The Land Acquisition Officer estimated the price of the said land as Rs.
17,200 per acre. The District Court, on reference being made under Section
18 of the LA Act, enhanced the land value to Rs. 65,762 per acre. Before
the reference court, the landowner relied on Ex.Al to A4, which are
certified copies of registered sale-deeds relating to other lands. It was
contended that those sale-deeds relate to similar lands and therefore the
value of the land mentioned in such documents can be used as guidance for
fixing up the market value of the acquired land.
Ex. Al is the copy of sale-deed dated 28.8.1983. in respect of 0.02 guntas
of land. PW2 the vendor shown in the said sale deed was examined before the
reference court. Ex. A3 is the copy of the sale-deed dated 2.1. 1984 in
respect of three Guntas of land, for which Pw 3, the vendee, was examined
by the claimant.
Ex.A2 and Ex.A4 are the copies of sale-deed dated 15.11.1983 and 24.3.1984
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4
respectively, which are said to be the instruments relating to small plots
of land situated in the vicinity of the acquired land. The reference court
did not take into account those two sale-deeds on the ground that nobody
connected with the transaction involved in those deeds had been examined as
a witness. But the division bench of the High Court expressed that the
reference court should have taken into consideration those two sale deeds
also for fixing the land value of the acquired land. The High Court took
them into consideration and finally reached (he conclusion that the value
of the acquired land could have been Rs. 75,000 per acre as on the date of
the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the L.A. Act.
Smt. K. Amreshwari, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant State
contended that the High Court ought not have taken into consideration any
of those documents as nobody connected with the transaction mentioned
therein had been examined. On the other hand Sri Vidya Sagar, learned
counsel for the respondent submitted that Section 51A of the Act is
intended to enable the Court to consider the transaction evidenced by the
sale deeds.
That Section reads thus :
"51A Acceptance of certified copy as evidence - In any proceeding under
this Act, a certified copy of a document registered under the Registration
Act, 1908 (16 of 1908). including a copy given under Section 57 of that
Act, may be accepted as evidence of the transaction recorded in such
document."
Smt. Amreshwari cited the two decisions (supra) in which this Court held
that mere marking of the copy of the sale-deed would not help the court to
consider the transaction therein as evidence. In Inder Singh v. UOI, [1993]
3 SCC .340 the two judge bench (K. Ramaswamy and RM Sahai, JJ) pointed out
that no witness was examined in respect of four documents in that ease in
proof of the sale transaction referred to therein. After referring to
Section 51A of the L.A. Act teamed judges pointed out that the proposition
of law settled is that examination of witnesses is necessary to find out
whether the sale transactions are bona fide, or genuine as between the
vendee and the vendor. Learned judges then observed thus:
"In view of the above-settled legal position and the circumstances, the
documentary evidence of sale transactions or in the mutation entries on
either side are clearly not admissible and therefore, they cannot be looked
into, and are accordingly excluded from consideration."
In P. Ram Reddy v. Land Acquisition Officer, Hyderabad. [1995] 2 SCC 305, a
bench of two judges (K.. Ramaswamy and N. Venkatachala, JJ) again
considered the position under Section 51 A of the L.A. Act. Speaking for
the bench Venkatachala J. had stated thus :
"However, the mere fact that a certified copy of the document is accepted
as evidence of the transaction recorded in such documents does not dispense
with the need for a party relying upon the certified copies of such
documents produced in court in examining witnesses connected with documents
to establish their genuineness and the truth of their contents. Therefore,
the certified copies of the registered documents, though accepted as
evidence of transactions recorded in such documents, the court is not bound
to act upon the contents of those documents unless persons connected with
such documents give evidence in court as regards them and such evidence is
accepted by the court as true." Before the introduction of Section 51A in
the L.A. Act the courts have, invariably, taken the view (hat unless at
least one person, having direct knowledge about the transaction mentioned
in the sale-deed, is examined the mere marking of the copy of the document
was insufficient for the court to consider the details mentioned in the
document as evidence. This Court has also approved the said position as
legally correct (vide The Collector Raigarh v. Dr. Harisingh Thakur, AIR
(1979) SC 472.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4
If the only purpose served by Section 51A is to enable the Court to admit
the copy of the document in evidence there was no need for a legislative
exercise because even otherwise the certified copy of the document could
have been admitted in evidence. Section 64 of the Evidence Act says that
"documents must be proved by primary evidence except in the cases herein-
after mentioned." Section 65 mentions the cases in which secondary evidence
can be given of the existence, condition or contents of a document. One of
the cases included in the list is detailed in clause (1) of the Section
which reads thus :
"When the original is a document of which a certified copy is permitted by
this Act, or by any other law in force in India, to be given in evidence."
Section 57 of the Registration Act, 1908 enables anyone to apply for copy
of the entries in Book No. 1 (the said Book is meant for keeping the
register of the documents as well as non-testamentary documents relating to
immovable property). When any person applies for a copy of it the same
shall be given to him. Sub-section (5) of Section 57 of that Act says that
"all copies given under this Section shall be signed and sealed by the
registering officer and shall be admissible for the purpose of proving the
contents of the original document."
If the position regarding admissibility of the contents of a document which
is a certified copy falling within the purview of section 57(5) of the
Registration Act was as adumbrated above, even before the introduction of
section 51A in the L.A. Act, could there be any legislative object in
incor-porating the said new provision through Act 68 of 1984? It must be
remem-bered that the state has the burden to prove the market value of the
lands acquired by it for which the state may have to depend upon the prices
of lands similarly situated which were transacted or sold in the recent
past, particularly those lands situated in the neighbouning areas. The
practice had shown that for the state officials it was a burden to trace
out the persons connected with such transactions mentioned in the sale-
deeds and then to examine them in court for the purpose of proving such
transactions. It was in the wake of the aforesaid practical difficulties
that the new Section 51A was introduced in the L. A. Act. When the Section
says that certified copy of a registered document "may be accepted as
evidence of the transaction recorded in such document" it enables the court
to treat what is recorded in the document, in respect of the transactions
referred to therein, as evidence.
The words "may be accepted as evidence" in the Section indicate that there
is no compulsion on the court to accept such transaction as evidence, but
it is open to the court to treat them as evidence. Merely accepting them as
evidence does not mean that the court is bound to treat them as reliable
evidence. What is sought to be achieved is that the transactions recorded
in the documents may be treated as evidence, just like any other evidence,
and it is for the court to weigh all the pros and cons to decide whether
such transaction can be relied on for understanding the real price of the
land concerned.
There are similar enabling provisions in other statutes by which the courts
are allowed to treat the facts slated in certain documents as evidence. In
the Code of Criminal procedure Section 293 is incorporated to enable the
Court to use the report of a Government Scientific Expert as evidence in
any inquiry, trial or proceeding under the said Code, even without
examining any person as a witness in court for that purpose. Similarly,
Section 13 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (pertaining to the
Report of a Public Analyst) contains sub-section (5) which says that any
document purporting to be a Report signed by a Public Analyst "may be used
as evidence of the facts stated therein in any proceeding under this Act."
Dealing with the scope of that provision a Constitution Bench of this Court
has held in Mangaldas v. State of Maharashtra, AIR (1966) SC 128. that the
sub-section clearly makes the contents of the Report of Public Analyst
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4
admissible in evidence and the prosecution cannot fail solely on the ground
that the Public Analyst had not been examined in the case, but what value
is lo be attached to such report must necessarily be for the court to
consider and decide.
In the case of Section 51A of the LA Act also the position cannot be
different, as it is open to the court lo act on the documents regarding the
transaction recorded in such documents. However, this will not prevent any
party who supports or opposes the said document or the transaction recorded
therein to adduce other evidence to substantiate their stand regarding such
transaction. But it is not possible to hold that even alter the
introduction of section 51A the position would remain the same as before.
In the light of the above discussion we arc unable to concur with the
observations made by the two judge bench in the decisions in Inder Singh v.
UOI, [1993] 3 SCC 340 and P. Ram Reddy v. Land Acquisition Officer,
Hyderabad, [1995] 2 SCC 305 (Supra) that even in spite of Section 5IA of
the Act certified copies of the sale-deed could not be considered without
examining persons connected with the transactions mentioned therein.
The High Court cannot therefore be faulted for relying on the transactions
recorded in Ex.A2 and A4 though no one was examined for proving such
transactions. No evidence had been adduced by the state for creating any
doubt regarding the bona fides or genuineness of (he transactions mentioned
therein. It is true that the area of lands involved in those sale-deeds
were relatively very small. Nonetheless, learned judges persuaded
themselves to consider the sale price indicated therein along with the
prices shown in other transactions mentioned in Ex. Al and A3 also, for
reaching the conclusion that the market value of the acquired land should
have been Rs. 75,000 per acre. The increase made by the High Court is not
so substantial as to warrant interference from this court.
For the aforesaid reasons we dismiss this appeal.