Holding

Section 51A permits certified copies of registered documents to be admitted as evidence, but does not compel the court to accept their contents as reliable, and the High Court was not faulted for relying on the sale deeds without witness examination.

Summary

The State, represented by the Land Acquisition Officer and Mandal Revenue Officer, sought to acquire 7.35 acres of land and initially valued it at Rs 17,200 per acre. The District Court enhanced the valuation to Rs 65,762 per acre, and the Andhra Pradesh High Court further raised it to Rs 75,000 per acre, relying on certified copies of two nearby sale deeds (Ex A2 and Ex A4) without examining any vendor or vendee. The State appealed, arguing that the High Court should not have considered those deeds because no person connected with the transactions was examined, while the respondent contended that Section 51A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 permits such documents to be admitted as evidence. The Supreme Court held that Section 51A merely allows the court to treat certified copies as evidence, without obligating it to accept them as reliable, and that the High Court was not in error for relying on the deeds in the absence of witness testimony. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether Section 51A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 authorises a court to consider certified copies of registered documents as evidence for valuation without examining persons connected with the transactions.
Whether the High Court erred in relying on such certified copies of sale deeds to enhance the market value of the acquired land.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedures. 293
Indian Evidence Act, 1872s. 64, s. 65
Land Acquisition Act, 1894s. 51A
Prevention of Food Adulteration Acts. 13(5)
Registration Act, 1908s. 57(5)

Subjects

Land acquisitionMarket valuationSection 51ACertified copyEvidence admissibilitySale deedStatutory interpretation

Judgment

.. r

~ . LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND MANDAL REVENUE OFFICER
v.
A

~ V. NARASAIAH

FEBRUARY 27, 2001

[K.T. THOMAS, R.P. SET.HI AND B.N. AGRAWAL, JJ.] B

Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Section SJ A-Acceptance of certified copy
of registered document as evidence in Cow1-Trial Court enhanced value of
land acquired-High Court fu11herenhanced value considering certified copies
of two sale deeds of lands in the vicinity without examining anybody concerned c
lvith those transactions-On appeal held, examination of someone concerned
ivith a document produced does not remain necessa1y after introduction of this
Section-Provision 1vas made keeping in vie1v that it ivas not abvays practical tv
trace out persons concerned ivith a document-No compulsion on the cou11 to
accept a transaction mentioned in such a document and either parties may
adduce evidence to oppose or support it-High Court cannot be.faulted.for the D
manner in which reliance ivas placed on the document-Moreover no evidence
was adduced creating any doubt over it.

Some lands of the reopondent were acquired under the Land Acqui-
sition Act 1894. The Land Acquisition Officer valued them at Rs. 17,200 E
y per acre, which was enhanced to Rs. 65,762 per acre by the District Court.
Dhision Bench of the High Court further enhanced it to Rs. 75,000 per
acre considering two sale deed• of some land in the vicinity under Section
51A of the Act, \vithout examining anybody concerned with those transac-
lions. Hence this appeal.
F
Appellant contended that th,e High Court had improperly considered
the sale deeds as no one concerned had been examined. Respondent con-
tended that Section 51A of the Act enabled consideration of documents in
such a manner.
G
Dismissing the appeal, the.Court

HELD : 1. Before the introduction of Section 51A in the Land Acqoi-
sition Act, 1894 the courts have, invariably, taken the view that 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 H
141
142 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2001] 2 S.C.R.
A was insufficient for the court to consider the details mentioned in the
document as evidence.(146-A·lll . '

The Collector Raigarh v. Dr. Harisingh Thakur, AIR (1979) SC 472,
relied on.

B 2. 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 legisla-
tive exercise because even otherwise the certified copy of the document
could have been admitted in evidence under the Evidence Act or with the
help of Section 57(5) of the Registration Act, 1908. The State has the bu'rden
to prove the market value of the lands acquired by it for which it may have
c to depend upon the prices of lands similarly situated which were transacted
or sold in the recent past, particularly those lands situated in the neighbour-
ing areas. 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
D such transactions. It was in the wake of the aforesaid practical difficulties
that the new Section 51A was introduced in the Act. However, there is no
compulsion on the court to accept such transaction as evidence, but it may
treat them as evidence. Merely accepting them as evidence does not mean
that the court is bound to treat them as reliable evidence. The object is that
E 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. It is open to the court to act on the docu-
ments regarding the transaction recorded in such documents. This will not
prevent any party who supports or opposes the said document or the trans·
F action recorded therein to adduce other evidence to substantiate their stand
regarding such transactions. (146-G-H; 147-A·D; HJ

Inder Singh v. U.0.1., [1993] 3 SCC 340 aud P. Ram Reddy v. land
Acquisition Officer, Hyderabad, [1995] 2 SCC 305, overruled.
G 3. There are similar enabling provisions in other statutes allowing the
courts to treat the facts stated in certain documents as evidence. Section 293
Cr.P.C. enables the Court to use the report of a Government Scientific
Expert as evidence in any inquiry, trial or proceeding even without
examining any person as a witness. Section 13(5) of the Prevention of Food
H Adulteration Act says that a Public Analyst's Report "may be used as
LAND ACQUISITTON AND MANDAL REVENUE OFFICER'· V. NARASA!AH [TIIOMAS,!.] 143
evidence of the facts stated therein in any proceeding under this Act" even A
if the Public Analyst is not examined. [147•E·GI
Mangaldas v. State of Maharashtra, Am (1966) SC 128, followed.
4, The High Court cannot be faulted for relying on the tra!ISactions
recorded in the sale deeds though no one was exarnin,ed for proving such
transactions and no evidence was adduced by the State for creating any
B
doubt regarding its bona }ides or gem~ineness. [148-C]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1560 of 2001.

From the Judgment and Or_der dated 26.6.2000 of the Andhra Pradesh
High Court in A. No. 1142 of 1992. c
Mrs. K. Amreshwari, Ms. T. Anamika and Guntur Prabhakar for the
Appellant.
Vidya K. Sagar and B.D. Sharma for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
D
THOMAS, J, Leave granted.
In a land acquisition case a division bench of the High Court of Andhra
Pradesh enhanced land value to Rupees seventy five thous¥J.d and odd per
acre over and above the market value fixed by the reference court. For making
the aforesaid enhancement the division bmch of the High Court took into E
'
consideration two sale-deeds the copy of which were marked without exam-
ining anybody connected with the transaction recorded in the instruments.
Appellant is actually the State of Andhra Pradesh thongh in the cause-title it
is shown as the_ Land Acqu:sition 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
F
examine the vendee or the vendor or anybody else connected with the sale.
There are 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 sec 305. G
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 SIA has been incorporated in the Land Acquisitio'! Act
1894 (for short the "the LA Act") specifically for obviating the insistence for H
144 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2001] 2 S.C.R.
A examination of anyone connected with the transactions mentioned in such
sale-deeds if the court has to consider such transactions as evidence in the c.
case. ,

The facts are very simple. A land having an extent of 7.35 acres at
Bheemagal Town has been acquired nnder the L.A. Act for a public purpose.
B Notification nnder 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 nnder 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
C registered sale-deeds relating to 0U1er 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 ~-
D gnntas 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.I 984
in respect of three Guntas of land, for which PW3, the vendee, was exaruined
by the claimant.

Ex.A2 and Ex.A4 are the copies of sale-deed dated 15.11.1983 and
E 24.3.1984 respectively, which are said to be the instruments relating to small
plots of land situated in the vicinity of the acquired land. The reference cour:
did not take into acconnt those two sale-deeds on the gronnd 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
F reference court should have taken into consideration those two sale deeds also
for fixing t11e land value of the acquired land. The High Court took them into
consideration and finally reached the 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.

G 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 exaruined. On the other hand Sri Vidya Sagar, learned
connsel for the respondent submitted that Section 5 !A of the Act is intended
H to enable the Court to consider the transaction evidenced by the sale deeds.
LAND ACQUISITTON AND MANDALREVENUE OFFICER v. V. NARASAIAH [TIIOMAS, J.] 145
That Section reads thus : A

"SIA 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 S7 of that Act, may be accepted as evidence of the transaction
recorded in such document." B

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 lnder Singh v. UOJ, [1993]
3 SCC 340 the two judge bench (K. Ramaswamy and RM Sahai, JJ) pointed
out t11at no witness was examined in respect of four documents in that case
c
in proof of the sale transaction referred to therein. After referring to Section
SIA of the L.A. Act learned 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: D

"In view of the above-settled legal position and the circtL'nstances, 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."
E
Inl'. Ram Reddy v. Land Acquisition Officer, Hyderabad, [199S] 2 SCC
30S, a bench of two judges (K. Ramaswamy and N. Venkatachala. JJ) again
considered the position under Section S!A of the L.A. Act. Speaking for the
bench Venkatachala J. had stated thus :
F
"However, the mere fact that a certified copy of the docwnent 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 producea 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 G
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."
H
146 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2001] 2 S.C.R.
A Before the introduction of Section 5 IA in the L.A. Act the courts have,
invariably, taken the view that 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 ~vidence. This Court has also
approved the said position as legally correct (vide The Collector Raigarh v. Dr.
B
Harisingh Thakur, AIR (1979) SC 472. '

If the only purpose served by Section 5 IA 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
c have been admitted in evidence. Section 64 of the Evidence Act says that
"documents mnit 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 (t) of the Section which reads
thus :
D
"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
E copy of the entries in Book No. I (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
F 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
G section 51A in the L.A. Ac~ could there be any legislative object in incor-
porating the said new provision through Act 68 of 1984? It mnst 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
H those lands situated in the neighbouring areas. The practice had shown that
LAND ACQ'i!SITTON AND MANDAL REVENUE OFFICER'· V. NARASA!AH (THOMAS, I.] 147
for the state officials it was a burden to trace out the persons connected with A
' 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 SIA 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"
B
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 a~ evidence,
but it is open to the court to treat them as evidence. Merely accepting them c
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. D

There are similar enabling provisions in other statutes by which the
courts are allowed to treat the facts stated 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
E
inquiry, trial or proceeding under the said Code, even without examining any
person as a witness in court for tltat 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 F
of that provision a Constitution Bench of this Cowt 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 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 G
report must necessarily be for the court to consider and decide.

In the case of Section SIA of the LA Act also the position cannot be
different, as it is open to the court to 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 H
148 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001) 2 S.C.R.
A therein to adduce other evidence to substantiate their stand regarding such
transaction. But it is not possible to hold that even after the introduction of
section 5 lA the position would remain the same as before.

In the light of the above discussion we are unable to concur witl1 the
observations made by the two judge bench in the decisions in Jnder Singh v.
B UOJ, (1993] 3 SCC 340 and P. Ram Reddy v. Land Acquisition Office1;
Hyderabad, (1995] 2 SCC 305 (Supra) tliat even in spite of Section SIA of
the Act certified copies of t11e sale-deed could not be considered without
examining persons connected with the transactions mentioned therein.

The High Court cannot tl1erefore be faulted for relying on the transac-
c tions 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 the u·ansactions mentioned
tl1erein. It is trne tl1at the area of lands involved in tl10se sale-deeds were ;...
relatively very small. Nonetheless, Jeamed judges persuaded tl1emsclves to
D consider the sale price indicated tl1erein along witl1 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 wanant
interference fro1n this court.
E For the aforesaid reasons we dismiss this appeal.

A.Q. Appeal dismissed.