S. Marimuthu, J.

This appeal is directed questioning the judgment in L. A.R. No. 3/91 of Sub Court, Ottapalam. Respondent State acquired 0.0199 Hectares of garden land comprised in Sy. No. 20/14 of Ottapalam Taluk belonging to the claimant for the construction of Coaxial Station and staff quarters. The notification under S.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published in the Kerala Gazette on 18.07.1988. The Land Acquisition Officer in Award No. 1/90 fixed the value of the land at Rs. 4.054/- per Are equivalent to Rs. 2000/- per cent including the improvements and the value of the building at Rs. 18,050. The claimant-appellant claimed Rs. 10.000/- per cent and Rs. 50.000/-for the building.

2. The reference Court, on examining the documents Exts. A1 to A5, Ext. R1, Exts. C1, C2 and also the evidence of the claimant, the Commissioner and RW1, enhanced the land value to Rs. 4.000/- per cent and accepted the value of the building at Rs. 18.050/- as per the award of the Land Acquisition Officer. Now, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that Exts. Alto A5 documents are sufficient to enhance the value of the land at Rs. 10.000/- per cent and evidence of the Commissioner as AW.2 and also his report and plan marked as Exts. C1 and C2 are also sufficient to fix the value of the building at Rs. 50.000/-.

3. The learned Government Pleader, on the other hand would submit that in the absence of the examination of the vendor or vendee or the assignor or assignee of those documents, Exts. Al to A5, those documents cannot be relied upon for fixing the value of the land in the present proceedings and hence those documents have been rightly rejected by the Reference Court. In so far as the value of the building is concerned, the learned Government Pleader would urge that the value fixed by the Commission at Rs. 40,900/- cannot be accepted because the Commissioner is not an expert. Only the evidence of the experts can be considered for the purpose of fixing the value of the building (viz., Engineers) as provided in O. XXVI R.10A of the Code of Civil Procedure. One of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant in this context would be that when Exts. Al to A5, the certified and attested copies of the sale deeds and assignment deeds were marked the respondents did not raise any objection in the trial court and therefore, it has to be presumed that the contents thereon are accepted by the respondents and hence now in the appellate stage, neither the admission of those documents nor the contents thereon can be challenged by the respondents. On the other hand, the contention of the learned Government Pleader would be that as per the settled law laid down by the Apex Court, even though such documents were admitted in the Reference Court, it does not mean that the contents thereon are accepted by the respondents and unless the vendor or vendee or the assignor or assignee of the documents is examined to establish the contents of the documents, the documents marked in the trial court have no evidentiary value in relation to the contents. On account of the above rival submission of both sides, the question of law on this aspect can be examined.

4. A Division Bench of this Court in State of Kerala v. Parvathi Amma (19T3 KLT 1019) has held thus:

"It is the duty of the State in land acquisition cases to examine persons connected with the execution of documents to prove the documents. The Court cannot act upon copies of registered sale deeds without the evidence of such persons. When reliance is placed upon comparable documents for the purpose of proving the value of the acquired lands, the Court, must be in a position to act upon such documents by being appraised of the circumstances attending upon the execution of such documents, the nature and condition of the properties and other relevant matters and that can be made available only by the evidence of the witnesses who are liable to speak to the circum