IMPORTANT POINT
Section 51A of the Land Acquisition Act enables the party producing the certified copy of a sale transaction to rely on the contents of the document without having to examine the vendee or the vendor of that document but the presumption as to the genuineness of the contents of the document can be relied upon only if the said presumption is not rebutted by other evidence.

Headnote:(i) Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Secton 51A as amended in 1984-Evidence Act, 1872-Sections 64 and 65-Scope of Section 51A-Certified copies of sale transactions-Admissibility-Object of inserting Section 51A in the Act-Section 51A enables the party producing the certified copy of a sale transaction to rely on contents of the document without having to examine the vendee or vendor of that document-However contents of sale deed cannot be taken as a conclusive proof as regard the transaction contained therein-There is a presumption as to the genuineness of the contents of the document-These can be relied upon only if the said presumption is not rebutted by other evidence-LAO v. V. Narasaiah, 2001(3) SCC 530: Affirmed-Special Deputy Collector v. Kurra Sambasiva Rao, 1997(6) SCC 41 : Overruled.
       Held : In the acquisition proceedings, sale deeds are required to be brought on records for the purpose of determining market value payable to the owner of the land when it is sought to be acquired. Although by reason of the aforementioned provision the parties are free to produce original documents and prove the same in accordance with the terms of the rules of evidence as envisaged under the Indian Evidence Act, the L.A. Act provides for an alternative thereto by inserting the said provision in terms whereof the certified copies which are otherwise secondary evidence may be brought on record evidencing a transaction. Such transactions in terms of the aforementioned provision may be accepted in evidence. (Paras 26 and 27)
       Section 51A of the L.A. Act may 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 been conferred upon a court to be exercised judicially, i.e., upon taking into consideration the relevant factors. (Para 28)
       The reasoning of this Court in Narasaiah s case that Section 51A enables the party producing the certified copy of a sale transaction to rely on the contents of the document without having to examine the vendee or the vendor of that document is the correct position in law. (Para 31)
       A registered document in terms of Section 51A of the Act may carry therewith a presumption of genuineness. Such a presumption, therefore, is rebuttable. Raising a presumption, therefore, does not amount to proof; it only shifts the burden of proof against whom the presumption operates for disproving it. Only if the presumption is not rebutted by discharging the burden, the court may act on the basis of such presumption. Even when in terms of the Evidence Act, a provision has been made that the court shall presume a fact, the same by itself would not be irrebuttable or conclusive. The genuineness of a transaction can always fall for adjudication, if any question is raised in this behalf. (Para 35)
       (ii) Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Section 51 as amended in 1984-Scope-Compensation claim-Land Acquisition Officer awarded Rs. 3707/- per acre-Reference Court enhanced the said compensation to Rs. 8,000/- per acre-Writ petition filed by beneficiary of acquisition-Matter was remanded back for fresh disposal to the Reference Court-Respondent produced certified copies of two sale transactions-Reference Court refused to place reliance on the said documents on ground that contents of the said document were not proved-Appeal-High Court disagreeing with reference Court relied on contents of certified copies and enhanced the compensation to Rs. 15,000/- per acre-High Court did not take into consideration other evidence available on record in regard to comparative nature of land, location of land, its market potentiality etc.-Award of compensation on an arithmetic calculation based on value found in two certified copies of sale deeds-Whether judgment of the High Court is sustainable-(No).
       Held : 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. Since such a comparative examination of the evidence has not been made by the High Court in the above appeal, even though there was material available on record, we think it proper that the impugned judgment in the above appeal be set aside and the matter be remanded to the High Court for consideration in accordance with law laid down and the directions given in this case. Accordingly, this appeal succeeds to the extent stated herein above. (Para 40)

JUDGMENT

Santosh Hegde, J.-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.

2. 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 acquisition proceedings would take long time before award of the compensation attains finality and in the meanwhile the owner of the sale deed is precluded from using the same for other purposes vis-a-vis this land. The marking of the certified copy per se is not admissible in evidence unless it is duly proved and the witnesses, viz., the vendor or the vendee, are examined." (Emphasis supplied)

3. According to the above judgment Section 51A only dispenses with the production of the original sale deed and permits the receiving of a certified copy of such document in evidence. It is further held that the marking of certified copy per se does not make the contents of such document admissible in evidence unless it is duly proved and witnessed, that is, by the examination of the vendor or the vendee.

4. In the subsequent case of V. Narasaiah (supra), though this Court did not notice earlier judgment in Kurra Sambasiva Rao s case noticing certain other judgments which took similar view disagreed with the said view and held that the object of the Act was not only to permit the production of certified copy of the sale transactions but was also to accept the same as evidence of the transactions. This is what the courts had to say in V. Narasaiah s case in regard to the insertion of Section 51A in the L.A.Act.

"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 hereinafter 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 (f) of the section which reads thus:

"65(f) 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 a 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:

"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 the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2004 Supreme(SC) 1267

Cases Referred (10)