LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND MANDAL REVENUE OFFICER versus V. NARASAIAH

Citation: [2001] 2 S.C.R. 141 · Decided: 27-02-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.T. THOMAS · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

.. r 
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND MANDAL REVENUE OFFICER 
A 
~ . 
v. 
~ 
V. NARASAIAH 
FEBRUARY 27, 2001 
[K.T. THOMAS, R.P. SET.HI AND B.N. AGRAWAL, JJ.] 
B 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Section SJ A-Acceptance of certified copy 
of registered document as evidence in Cow1-Trial Court enhanced value of 
land acquired-High Court fu11herenhanced value considering certified copies 
of two sale deeds of lands in the vicinity without examining anybody concerned c 
lvith those transactions-On appeal held, examination of someone concerned 
ivith a document produced does not remain necessa1y after introduction of this 
Section-Provision 1vas made keeping in vie1v that it ivas not abvays practical tv 
trace out persons concerned ivith a document-No compulsion on the cou11 to 
accept a transaction mentioned in such a document and either parties may 
D 
adduce evidence to oppose or support it-High Court cannot be.faulted.for the 
manner in which reliance ivas placed on the document-Moreover no evidence 
was adduced creating any doubt over it. 
Some lands of the reopondent were acquired under the Land Acqui-
sition Act 1894. The Land Acquisition Officer valued them at Rs. 17,200 
E 
y 
per acre, which was enhanced to Rs. 65,762 per acre by the District Court. 
Dhision Bench of the High Court further enhanced it to Rs. 75,000 per 
acre considering two sale deed• of some land in the vicinity under Section 
51A of the Act, \vithout examining anybody concerned with those transac-
lions. Hence this appeal. 
F 
Appellant contended that th,e High Court had improperly considered 
the sale deeds as no one concerned had been examined. Respondent con-
tended that Section 51A of the Act enabled consideration of documents in 
such a manner. 
G 
Dismissing the appeal, the.Court 
HELD : 1. Before the introduction of Section 51A in the Land Acqoi-
--" 
sition Act, 1894 the courts have, invariably, taken the view that unless at 
least one person, having direct knowledge about the transaction mentioned 
in the sale-deed, is examined the mere marking of the copy of the document 
H 
141 
142 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2001] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
was insufficient for the court to consider the details mentioned in the 
document as evidence.(146-A·lll 
The Collector Raigarh v. Dr. Harisingh Thakur, AIR (1979) SC 472, 
relied on. 
B 
2. If the only purpose served by Section 51A is to enable the Court to 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
admit the copy of the document in evidence there was no need for a legisla-
tive exercise because even otherwise the certified copy of the document 
could have been admitted in evidence under the Evidence Act or with the 
help of Section 57(5) of the Registration Act, 1908. The State has the bu'rden 
to prove the market value of the lands acquired by it for which it may have 
to depend upon the prices of lands similarly situated which were transacted 
or sold in the recent past, particularly those lands situated in the neighbour-
ing areas. Practice had shown that for the state officials it was a burden to 
trace out the persons connected with such transactions mentioned in the 
sale-deeds and then to examine them in court for the purpose of proving 
such transactions. It was in the wake of the aforesaid practical difficulties 
that the new Section 51A was introduced in the Act. However, there is no 
compulsion on the court to accept such transaction as evidence, but it may 
treat them as evidence. Merely accepting them as evidence does not mean 
that the court is bound to treat them as reliable evidence. The object 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. It is open to the court to act on the docu-
ments regarding the transaction recorded in such documents. This will not 
prevent any party who supports or opposes the said document or the trans· 
action recorded therein to adduce other evidence to substantiate their stand 
regarding such transactions. (146-G-H; 147-A·D; HJ 
Inder Singh v. U.0.1., [1993] 3 SCC 340 aud P. Ram Reddy v. land 
Acquisition Officer, Hyderabad, [1995] 2 SCC 305, overruled. 
3. There are similar enabling provisions in other statutes allowing the 
courts to treat the facts stated in certain documents as evidence. Section 293 
Cr.P.C. enables the Court to use the report of a Government Scientif

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.