The main legal point established in the judgment is that the valuation of acquired land and buildings in land acquisition cases must be based on genuine and bona fide transactions, and the contents of documents must be proved by examining witnesses, as per S.51A of the Land Acquisition Act.

K.K. Usha, J.

Claimants in L.A.R.187/97 on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Thalassery, are the appellants. They challenge the judgment of the reference Court on the ground that the enhancement in land value granted was not sufficient. An extent of 0.0382 hectares (9.50 Cents) of garden land belonging to the appellants, was acquired for realignment of N.H.17. Under the award, Rs. 72,801 was granted for 91/2 Cents of acquired land and Rs. 99,839/- for the building thereon. Claimants contended that they are entitled to land value at the rate of Rs. 30,000/- per Cent and building should have been valued at Rs. 2,25,000/-. The basic document relied on in the award is one dated 18.9.1.993 relating to 0.0405 hectares of land. After deducting value of improvements on the land, land value was fixed at Rs. 11,50,500/- per hectare.

2. Ist claimant was examined on behalf of the claimants as Awl. He deposed that the acquired land lies abutting the National Highway. Near to the acquired land, there are various institutions like F.C.I godown, Canara Bank, Sreekoormba temple, Talkies etc. Muzhappilangad beach resort situates about 1 km. away from the acquired land. In Ext.Cl report, Commissioner had stated that the basic land situates about 1 km. away from the acquired land and it is not similar to the acquired land. Registration copy of the document No. 439/94 was marked as Ext. Al in which the land value shown was at the rate of Rs. 15,000/- per Cent In Ext. A2 registration copy of another document No. 172/96, land value was shown as Rs. 25,000/- per Cent. It is on this basis, enhancement of land value was sought.

3. On behalf of the respondents, Revenue Inspector was examined as rw1. Copy of the basic document was marked as Ext. B1. Revenue Inspector stated that the basic document is similar to the acquired land and the land value given at the rate of Rs. 4,617 per Cent is fair and reasonable.

4. On the basis of the evidence in the case, reference court came to the conclusion that basic land is situated in less advantageous position and therefore it is not similar to the land acquired. But the Court was not prepared to accept the Commissioner's opinion that centage value would come between Rs. 40,000/- as Rs. 45,000/- as it was found that this opinion was formed on the basis of the local enquiry and not on the basis of any documentary evidence. The Court further found that the acquisition admittedly being in 1993, Exts. Al and A2 which are post acquisition documents cannot be relied on. Apart from the above, the claimant did not examine the parties to Exts. Al and A2 and therefore the sale consideration referred therein cannot be taken as reliable evidence regarding the value of the land acquired. But, at the same time, the Court found that the land value fixed in the award at the rate of Rs. 4,6.177- is not fair and reasonable in view of the importance and potentiality of the acquired land which lies adjacent to the National Highway. The Court therefore enhanced the land value and fixed the same at Rs. 7,500/-per cent. No enhancement was granted regarding value of the structure for the reason that there was no evidence available.

5. The main contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants before us is that the reference Court has erred in not taking into consideration the land value shown in Exts. Al and A2. It is contended by the learned counsel that once the documents were marked without any objection, therefore, the reference Court could not have refused to examine the contents of the document, in order to adopt the sale value referred therein. In support of the above contention, learned counsel relied on a Bench decision of this Court in State of Kerala v. Saidali,1999 (2) KLT 617. Learned Judges have taken the view that when the registered documents are admitted in evidence, it cannot be insisted that parties to those documents should be examined to prove the transaction in spite of admissibility of the