The legal point established in the judgment is the clarification of the admissibility of certified copies of sale deeds in evidence under Section 51-A of the Land Acquisition Act, emphasizing the need for the court to weigh all pros and cons and the discretion to rely on such transactions as evidence.

Judgment :

1. The land to the extent of 486.61 acres in Village Mewla Maharajpur, Tehsil and District Faridabad was acquired pursuant to a Notification dated 7-9-1992 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (“the Act”, for short). The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.1,96,000 per acre by the award dated 8-2-1995. The claimant landowners, not being satisfied with the amount of compensation so awarded, sought reference under Section 18 of the Act for enhancement of compensation. The Reference Court, on the basis of the evidence that was placed before it, awarded compensation for the lands acquired at the rate of Rs. 325 per square yard.

2. The claimants as well as the State were not satisfied with the amount of compensation awarded by the Reference Court. Consequently, both of them filed appeals before the High Court. The learned Single Judge of the High Court, on consideration of the material placed on record, in the light of the submissions made on behalf of the parties, passed the order reducing the compensation from Rs. 325 per square yard to Rs. 90 per square yard. The claimants filed appeals before the Division Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench of the High Court by the impugned orders (Vinod Bansal v. State of Haryana, LPA No. 793 of 2000, order dated 12-3-2001 (P&H) dismissed the appeals. Hence the claimants are before this Court in these appeals.

3. In Civil Appeals Nos. 9787-91 of 2003 the learned counsel for the respondents seeks permission to delete the pro forma Respondent 3 as he has died. Respondent 3 may be deleted. We must make it clear here itself that the respondent State did not challenge the order made by the High Court, in other words, it accepted the compensation fixed at Rs. 90 per square yard as correct.

4. A question arose as to whether the certified copies of the sale deeds were admissible in evidence without examining the witnesses in support of the sale deeds having regard to Section 51-A of the Act. In Cement Corpn. Of India Ltd. v. Purya (2013) 5 SCC 626 a reference was made to a larger Bench in regard to the same question finding some conflict in decisions i.e. Collector v. Kurra Sambasiva Rao (1997) 6 SCC 41) and Land Acquisition Officer & Mandal Revenue Officer v. V. Narasaiah (2001) 3 SCC 530). Other appeals were tagged with Civil Appeal No. 6986 of 1999. The Constitution Bench of this Court disposed of Civil Appeal No. 6986 of 1999 on 7-10-2004 (Cement Corpn. Of India Ltd. v. Purya, (2004) 8 SCC 270) resolving the conflict of decisions with regard to receiving of certified copies of sale deeds in evidence without examining the vendor or the vendee to prove the original sale deeds.

5. The Constitution of Bench in the aforesaid case approved (supra) the view taken in Narasaiah case (supra). In Narasaiah case (supra) this Court held thus: (SCC p. 535, para 14)

“14. The words ‘may be accepted as evidence’ in the section indicate that there is no compulsion on the court to accept such transaction as evidence, but it is open to the court to treat them as evidence. Merely accepting them 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.”

While approving this view the Constitution Bench in Cement Corpn. of India Ltd. v. Purya (supra) has explained thus: (SCC p. 283, para 39)

“39. While it is clear that under Section 51-A 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 that the decision of this Court in Land Ac