2004 (10) TMI 611 - SC - Indian Laws

Conflict between two 3-Judge Benches - Interpretation of Section 51A of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 -Admissibility and evidentiary value of certified copies of sale transactions u/s 51A - Judicial discretion in accepting certified copies as evidence - conflict between two 3-Judge Benches of this Court in the case of Special Deputy Collector Anr. vs. Kurra Sambasiva Rao Ors. 1997 (4) TMI 547 - SUPREME COURT and Land Acquisition Officer Mandal Revenue Officer vs. V.Narasaiah another 2001 (2) TMI 1056 - SUPREME COURT 3-Judge - The former held that Section 51A of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 only facilitated the production of certified copies of sale transactions but did not make their contents admissible unless duly proved by witnesses. The latter however interpreted Section 51A to allow the certified copies to be accepted as evidence without the need for examining the vendor or vendee. HELD THAT - In this appeal originally the Land Acquisition Officer awarded Rs. 3707/- per acre for the acquired land. On reference being made by the claimant the Reference Court enhanced the said compensation to Rs. 8, 000/- per acre which was challenged by the beneficiary of the acquisition before the High Court in a writ petition which was allowed and the matter was remanded back for fresh disposal to the Reference Court. Before the Reference Court the respondent herein produced two certified copies of two sale transactions which were marked as Ex. P1 and P2. The Reference Court however refused to place reliance on the said documents on the ground that the contents of the said document were not proved. Hence it rejected the reference. Being aggrieved by the said order the claimants-respondents preferred an appeal before the High Court the High Court disagreeing with the reference court relied on the contents of Ex. P1 and P2 and enhanced the compensation to Rs. 15, 000/- per acre. While doing so the High Court proceeded merely on the contents of Ex.P1 and P2 and did not take into consideration the other evidence available on record i regard to the comparative nature of the land location of the land the market potentiality of the land etc. and fixed the compensation on an arithmetic calculation based on the value found in Ex. P1 and P2. We do not think this is the correct approach. While it is true the contents of Ex.P1 and P2 should be looked into as evidence produced by a party the evaluation of such evidence should be made taking into consideration other evidence if available on record like other sale transactions that may be produced the comparative nature of the location suitability marketability etc. to fix the market value of the land acquired. The Supreme Court concluded that the decision in V. Narasaiah s case lays down the correct law regarding Section 51A of the Land Acquisition Act. The certified copies of sale transactions may be accepted as evidence without the need for oral testimony but their contents must be judicially evaluated along with other evidence. The case was remanded to the High Court for reconsideration in light of this interpretation. The facts of the other cases being different we think it appropriate that it is not necessary for a 5-Judge Bench to decide the issues involved in these cases because the question of law has been decided in C.A. Therefore these appeals should be placed before an appropriate Bench of this Court for final disposal. It is ordered accordingly.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of Section 51A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
2. Admissibility and evidentiary value of certified copies of sale transactions.
3. Judicial discretion in accepting evidence.

Summary:

1. Interpretation of Section 51A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894:
The Supreme Court noticed a conflict between two 3-Judge Benches regarding the interpretation of Section 51A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. In *Kurra Sambasiva Rao* (1997), the Court held that Section 51A only facilitates the production of a certified copy of a sale transaction and does not make its contents admissible in evidence unless duly proved by examining the vendor or vendee. Conversely, in *V. Narasaiah* (2001), the Court held that Section 51A allows the certified copy of a sale transaction to be accepted as evidence without the need to examine the vendor or vendee.

2. Admissibility and evidentiary value of certified copies of sale transactions:
The Court in *Kurra Sambasiva Rao* interpreted Section 51A narrowly, stating that the marking of certified copies does not make the contents admissible unless proved by witnesses. However, in *V. Narasaiah*, the Court expanded the scope, stating that the legislative intent was to accept certified copies as evidence of the transactions, considering practical difficulties in examining parties to the sale. The Court highlighted that certified copies could be admitted as secondary evidence under Sections 64 and 65(f) of the Evidence Act and Section 57(5) of the Registration Act.

3. Judicial discretion in accepting evidence:
The Supreme Court concluded that the interpretation in *V. Narasaiah* was correct, allowing certified copies to be accepted as evidence without examining the vendor or vendee. However, it emphasized that the acceptance of such evidence is discretionary and must be judicially exercised. The Court clarified that the contents of a certified copy do not automatically prove the transaction but must be weighed with other evidence on record.

Case Specifics:
In C.A. No. 6986 of 1999, the Reference Court initially awarded compensation based on certified copies of sale transactions but did not consider other relevant evidence. The High Court enhanced the compensation solely based on the certified copies, which the Supreme Court found incorrect. The Supreme Court remanded the case to the High Court for a comprehensive evaluation of all evidence, including the comparative nature of the land, location, and market potentiality.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court settled the interpretation of Section 51A, affirming *V. Narasaiah* as the correct law. It emphasized that while certified copies of sale transactions may be accepted as evidence, their contents must be judicially evaluated with other available evidence. The case was remanded to the High Court for reconsideration in line with these principles. Other connected appeals were directed to be placed before an appropriate Bench for final disposal.