Kurian Joseph, J.

1. What is the evidentiary value of the basic document produced before the reference court, in the absence of independent evidence leading to the circumstances in which the sale came to be made, is the question for consideration in this appeal filed by the State.

2. S.51A of the Land Acquisition Act dealing with the acceptance of certified copy as evidence reads as follows:

"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."

It is now trite law that the said Section only provides for the admission of a certified copy in the place of the original document. It is also the settled law as of now that merely because a certified copy of a registered document is produced before court it does not mean that the contents of the same are proved without examining the necessary witnesses. The Bench decision of this Court in State of Kerala v. Saidali (1999 (2) KLT 617) that it was not necessary to examine the parties associated with the document in order to prove the transaction was rightly held to be one rendered per incuriam in a subsequent Bench decision of this Court in Swamidasan v. Executive Engineer (1999 (3) KLT 841) and hence the position is now well settled that S.51A of the Act only contemplates the production of a certified copy as document, instead of the original, and if the contents were to be proved, it could be done only by examining the required witnesses familiar with the transaction. But what we propose to examine in this case is whether it makes a difference when the Land Acquisition Officer produces the basic document and leaves it there without examining either the vendor or the vendee etc.

3. In the Bench decision reported in State of Kerala v. Malankara R. & P. Co. Ltd., 1999 (2) KLT 613), dealing with the subject matter, at Para.10 it was held as follows:

"10. Again the above question came up before the Supreme Court in the ruling reported in G. Narayana Rao v. Land Acquisition Officer, 1996 (10) SCC 607). The Supreme Court held that a court is not entitled to accept the evidence of the Land Acquisition Officer when the document was not made part of the record nor anyone was examined in proof of the circumstances in which the sale happened to be executed. The Land Acquisition Officer cannot claim any better treatment than that of the claimant. The claimant has a duty to prove, to claim just and reasonable compensation by adducing reliable evidence. In rebuttal of this evidence, if the Land Acquisition Officer requires to prove his side of the story, he must also adduce evidence either documentary or oral. The Land Acquisition Office cannot shirk his responsibility by merely relying on the proceedings of the enquiry. It must be proved by producing documents and by proving the same by examining witnesses."

The Apex Court in G. Narayana Rao's case referred above, at Para.5 of the order held as follows:-

"5. It would appear that the Land Acquisition Officer stated in has evidence that the land of an extent of 200 sq. yds. was sold to a public authority at a rate worked out at Rs. 47 per sq. yd. But, as rightly pointed out by the High Court, the said document was not made part of the record nor anyone was examined in proof of the circumstances in which sale came to be made. Under these circumstances, the High Court rightly was not inclined to accept that part of the evidence to determine compensation in this case. We do not find any error of any principle of law committed by the High Court warranting interference."

4. It may be seen that in both the above cases neither the document was produced and made part of the record nor was anyone examined in proof of the circumstances in which the sale referred to in those cases came to be made. In such circumstances, it was held that the basic document, if to b