A.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, HYDERABAD, REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTORversusP. VENKAIAH AND ORS.

A         A.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,



                                                                                   -
       HYDERABAD, REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR
                                           v.
                             P. VENKAIAH AND ORS.

                                    APRIL 28, 1997
B
                  (K. RAMASWAMY AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.]

            Land Acquisition Act, 1894 :

        Compensation-Award of-Reliance on sale deeds by Courts below for
C enhancing compensation-Held, examination of the persons connected with
  the sale and parties to the documents necessary-Hence award of reference
  court as modified is set aside-Matter remitted to Reference Court for disposal
  of the matter afresh after giving opportunity to parties to adduce evidence
  afresh and considering the same.
D
            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3404 of
    1997.

         From the Judgment and Order dated 16.8.93 of the Andhra Pradesh
    High Court in A. No. 2064 1986.
E
         Altaf Ahmed, Additional Solicitor General and B. Parthasarthy for
    the Appellant.

            C.K. Sucharita and B. Kanta Rao for the Respondents.

            The following Order or' the Court was delivered :
F
            Substitution allowed.

            Leave granted. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

            Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
G (for short, the 'Act') was published o_n July 7, 1977, acquiring 14 acres 32
    guntas of land of Bachiragh village near Suryapet Nalgonda District (A.P.)
    for the purpose of constructing a Bus Stand Complex. The Land Acquisi-
    tion officer awarded compensation @ Rs. 7,500 per acre. The Sub-Court
    on reference awarded the considerated compensation @ Rs. 3.60 lacs per
H   acre. The High Court reduced it to Rs. 2,25,000 per acre. It is now not in
                                        1054
                  A.P.S.R.T.C., HYDERABAD v. P. VENKAIAH                   1055

    dispute that Exs. A-2, A-9 and A-11 were relied on to enhance the              A


-
    compensation. Admittedly, none of the persons connected with the docu-
    ments, namely, neither the vendee nor the vendor has been examined. This
    Court in Kumari Veeraiah & Ors. v. State of A.P., [1995) 4 SCC 136 held
    that in the absence of adduction of any evidence through. the vendor or the
    vendee, the document per se cannot be relied upon. This was reiterated in      B
    State of Bihar v. Madheshwar Prasad [1996) 6 SCC 197. Acceptance of
    certified copy of the sale deed under Section 51-A relates only to the
    production of the original sale deeds but it does not dispense with proof
    of the con.tents of the documents, relative features vis-a-vis 193, the land
    under acquisition. All is needed to be proved by examining the persons
    connected with the same and parties to the document. Following the above       C
    ratio, we hold that the view taken by the High Court and that of the
    reference Court is entirely illegal.

          The appeal is accordingly allowed. The judgment and award of the
    reference Court as modified stand set aside. The matter is remitted to the
    reference Court for disposal the matter afresh after an opportunity is given   D
    to adduce evidence afresh and the same is considered. No costs.

    G.N.                                                       Appeal allowed.