TMI Blog2004 (10) TMI 611X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 03/2003 ,10105/2003 Hegde N. Santosh, Variava S.N., Singh Bisheshwar P., Sema Hotoi Khetoho And Sinha S.B., JJ. JUDGMENT: Hegde N. Santosh, Noticing a conflict between two 3-Judge Benches of this Court in the case of Special Deputy Collector Anr. vs. Kurra Sambasiva Rao Ors. (1997 (6) SCC 41) and Land Acquisition Officer Mandal Revenue Officer vs. V.Narasaiah (2001 (3) SCC 530), another 3-Judge Bench of this Court on 31st of July, 2001 considered it appropriate to place C.A.No.6986/99 for consideration by a larger Bench. It is in this background, the above appeal and other connected appeals are now before us. In Kurra Sambasiva Rao s case (supra), this Court held that by introducing Section 51A in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter LA Act) the Legislature only facilitated the parties concerned to produce a certified copy of a sale transaction in evidence and nothing more. This is what the Court observed in the said case. Section 51-A only dispenses with the production of the original sale deed and directs to receive certified copy for the reason that parties to the sale transaction would be reluctant to part with the original sale deed since a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en to him. Sub-section (5) of Section 57 of that Act says that: 57.(5) 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 documents. 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 LA Act, could there be any legislative object in incorporating the said new provision through Act 68 of 1984? It must be remembered 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 neighbouring 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 difficu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plated by Section 79 of the Evidence Act. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on judgment of this Court in Madamanchi Ramappa Anr. vs. Muthaluru Bojjappa AIR 1963 (Vol 50) SCC 1633. The above three counsels thus contended that the judgment of this Court in. V. Narasaiah s case lays down the correct law. Dr. Aman Hingorani and Shri A.K. Matta, learned counsel appearing for the respective parties in the connected appeals submitted that the interpretation given by the three Judge Bench in the V. Narasaiah s case goes far beyond the object of introducing Section 51A which according to them only provides for acceptance of the certified copy in evidence as contemplated in Section 3 of the Evidence Act and nothing beyond that. They also contended that the certified copy of the registered document does not become a public document under Section 74 of the Evidence Act nor would it be primary evidence as argued by the appellant under Section 62 of the Evidence Act. The learned counsel who opposed the view in V. Narasaiah s case also brought to our notice certain other judgments of this Court wherein this Court had taken a similar view as taken by the three Judge Bench in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fy not only the consideration paid but also their specific knowledge and the circumstances in which the sale deed came to be executed, nearness to the lands, etc. the sale deeds cannot be relied on to determine market value of the acquired lands. In Indore Development Authority vs. Satyabhama Bai (SMT) Ors. 1996 (10) SCC 751, this Court following the earlier judgment of two Judge Bench in P. Ram Reddy vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Hyderabad Ors. held : that filing of the certified copies of the sale deeds and marked thereof under Section 51-A is only to enable the claimants to dispense with the obligation to produce the original sale deed from the owners who are disinclined to part with their valuable title deed during long pendency of the proceeding. However, the claimants are enjoined to call as witnesses the vendor or vendee to prove the transactions as genuine in nature \005\005\005\005 In the case of Meharban Ors. vs. State of U.P. and Ors. 1997 (6) SCC 54, a Bench of 3 Judges (which is not noticed by this Court in the case of V. Narasaiah (supra) ) this Court held :- Since none connected with the sale deeds was examined, the sale deeds are inadmissible ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the LA Act. We are in agreement with the said view expressed by this Court in Narasaiah s case. In the above background the question for our consideration would be, what then is the real object of inserting 51A in LA Act ? In the ordinary course a deed of sale is the evidence of a transaction by reason whereof for a consideration mentioned therein the title and interest in an immovable property specified therein is transferred by the vendor to the vendee. Genuineness of such transaction may be in question. In a given situation the quantum of consideration or the adequacy thereof may also fall for adjudication. The Courts, more often than not, are called upon to consider the nature of the transaction. Whenever a transaction evidenced by a sale deed is required to be brought on record, the execution thereof has to be proved in accordance with law. For proving such transaction, the original sale deed is required to be brought on record by way of primary evidence. Only when primary evidence is not available, a certified copy of the sale deed can be taken on record. Such certified copies evidencing any transaction are admissible in evidence, if the conditions precedent therefor in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be read literally and having regard to the ordinary meaning which can be attributed to the term acceptance of evidence relating to transaction evidenced by a sale deed, its admissibility in evidence would be beyond any question. We are not oblivious of the fact that only by bringing a documentary evidence in the record it is not automatically brought on the record. For bringing a documentary evidence on the record, the same must not only be admissible but the contents thereof must be proved in accordance with law. But when the statute enables a court to accept a sale deed on the records evidencing a transaction, nothing further is required to be done. The admissibility of a certified copy of sale deed by itself could not be held to be inadmissible as thereby a secondary evidence has been brought on record without proving the absence of primary evidence. Even the vendor or vendee thereof is not required to examine themselves for proving the contents thereof. This, however, would not mean that contents of the transaction as evidenced by the registered sale deed would automatically be accepted. The legislature advisedly has used the word may . A discretion, therefore, has bee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he submission of Mr. G. Chandrasekhar to the effect that the contents of a sale deed should be a conclusive proof as regard the transaction contained therein or the court must raise a mandatory presumption in relation thereto in terms of Section 51A of the Act cannot be accepted as the Court may or may not receive a certified copy of sale deed in evidence. It is discretionary in nature. Only because a document is admissible in evidence, as would appear from the discussions made hereinbefore, the same by itself would not mean that the contents thereof stand proved. Secondly, having regard to the other materials brought on record, the court may not accept the evidence contained in a deed of sale. When materials are brought on record by the parties to the lis, the court is entitled to appreciate the evidence brought on records for determining the issues raised before it and in the said process, may accept one piece of evidence and reject the other. In M.S. Madhusoodhanan and Anr. vs. Kerala Kaumudi (P) Ltd. and Ors. [(2004) 9 SCC 204], it is stated : 119\005 They are rules of evidence which attempt to assist the judicial mind in the matter of weighing the probative or persuasiv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the report of Public Analyst 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 to be attached to such report must necessarily be for the court to consider and decide. (Emphasis supplied) While it is clear that under Section 51A of the LA Act a presumption as to the genuineness of the contents of the document is permitted to be raised, the same can be relied upon only if the said presumption is not rebutted by other evidence. In the said view of the matter we are of the opinion the decision of this Court in the case of Land Acuisition Officer Mandal Revenue Officer vs. V. Narasaiah (supra) lays down the correct law. Having settled the scope of Section 51A of the LA Act as stated herein above, we will consider the facts in Civil Appeal No.6986 of 1999. In this appeal originally the Land Acquisition Officer awarded ₹ 3707/- per acre for the acquired land. On reference being made by the claimant, the Reference Court enhanced the said compensation to ₹ 8,000/- per acre which was challenged by the beneficiary of the acquisition before the High Court in a writ peti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
