The duty of the court to sit in the armchair of a willing and prudent purchaser and determine a reasonable and adequate compensation based on the market value of the land at the date of the publication of the notification under S.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act.

P.A. Mohammed, J.

The two appeals are from the judgments and decrees of the Sub Court, Kozhikode in L.A.R. Nos. 338/93 and 99/94 respectively. In L. A.R.No. 338/93 the judgment in L.A.R. No. 99/94 from which L.A.A. No. 1655/98 arose is relied on. Therefore, we will first deal with L.A.A. No. 1655 of 1998 as the main appeal to be decided.

2. Heard the Government Pleader for the appellants. We also heard the counsel who appeared for the claimants.

3. The notification involved in L.A.R. No. 99/94 was published in 13.3.1991. As per the award the Land Acquisition Officer fixed the land value at the rate of Rs. 2,908/- per cent as against the claim at the rate of Rs. 20,000/- per cent. However, in reference the court below enhanced the land value and refixed the same at Rs. 7,500/- per cent. The State being aggrieved by the said fixation has filed the appeal, L.A.A. No. 1655/1998.

4. The Government Pleader points out that the court below has relied on Exts. A1 and A2 sale deeds for determining the land value. According to him, Exts. A1 and A2 have not been legally proved inasmuch as neither the vendee nor the vendor of the documents was examined before the court below. As per Ext. A1 sale deed 9 cents of land was sold for Rs. 45,000/-, that is to say, at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per cent. The consideration for sale involved in Ext, A2 is Rs. 48,000/- and that means the percentage value is Rs. 8,000/-.

5. It. must be recalled that Exts. A1 and A2 were executed in the year 1985 and hence they were pre-notification sale deeds. Exts. A1 and A2 are registration copies of assignment deeds issued by the Sub Registrar under S.57 of the Registration Act, 1908. They are authorised copies and hence admissible for the purpose of proving the contents of original documents, in view of sub-s.(5) of the said section. The contents of the documents may. be proved either by primary or documentary evidence. However, S.64 of the Evidence Act provides that generally documents must be proved by primary evidence. But the secondary evidence may be given of the existence, condition or contents of documents in the case when the original is a document of which a certified copy is permitted by any law in force to be given in evidence. This is what is provided under S.65(0 of the Evidence Act. Exts. A1 and A2 registered copies of sale deeds are admissible in evidence in view of S.65 (f) of the Evidence Act read with S.57(5) of the Registration Act.

6. S.51-A of the Land Acquisition Act is as follows: 51-A. 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 S.57 of that Act, may be accepted as evidence of the transaction recorded in such document.

The above provision permits the courts to accept as evidence the transaction recorded in the certified copy of the document. The Supreme Court in State of Bihar v. Madheshwar Prasad (1996) 6 SCC 197) observed "under S.51A of the Act, the certified copy of the sale deed is admissible as evidence to get over the difficulties of the owner of the document would not produce the original title deeds". When the registered documents are admitted in evidence, it cannot be insisted that the parties to those documents should be examined to prove the transaction in spite of the admissibility of the documents in view of S.65(7) of the Evidence Act read with S.57(5) of the Registration Act. At the same time when the parties to the suit dispute genuineness and truth of the contents of such documents it may be a case for examination of the parties to the documents or other persons connected therewith, if the marking of documents is objected for that reason.

7. Exts. A1 and A2 sale deeds were marked through the claimant who has been examined as AW-1. The counsel for the claimant pointed out that the marking of the documents was not objected by the Government Pleader in the court below. No such o