STATE OF HARYANA versus RAM SINGH

Citation: [2001] 3 S.C.R. 1178 · Decided: 25-07-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.N. KHARE · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
STATE OF HARYANA 
v. 
RAM SINGH 
;.;.... 
JULY 25, 2001 
B 
[V.N. KHARE AND RUMA PAL, JJ.] 
Land Acquisition: 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Section 51-A-Compensation for land 
c acquisition-Reliance on sale deed of similar lands without examination of 
parties to the document-Validity of-Held, certified copies of the sale deed 
can be relied upon without examination of the parties thereto-Remanded 
back to High Court for correct determination of market value after considering 
the sale deeds of similar lands-Evidence Act, 1872-&ctions 74(2), 76 and 
D 
77. 
Land Acquisition-Award of further ·compensation towards potential 
value besides market value of the lands acquired-Validity of-Held, invalid 
as the . market value takes into consideration potential future value of the 
f--
land. 
E 
Words and Phrases: 
'Market Value'-Meaning in the context of Land acquisition. 
F 
Appellant--State acquired .land covering an area of about 180 acres 
and spread over four villages after issuing necessary notifications under the 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Compensation was awarded at an uniform rate 
for all the four villages depending upon the type of the lands, namely irrigated, 
non-irrigated and non-cultivable lands. On reference under the Act by the 
respondent-claimants, Trial court passed widely differing awards. The awards 
... 
G were challenged by the claimants before Single Judge of the High Court. 
The Single Judge adopted an uniform rate for all types of land in all the 
villages and directed the appellant-State to pay compensation at Rs. 1,72,000 
... 
per acre plus Rs. 30,000 per acre on account of potential value of the 
acquired land. The Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appellant's 
..... 
H 
appeal. Hence these cross appeals by the appellant and the claimants. 
·1178 
( 
STATE v. RAM SINGH 
1179 
The appellant-State contended that the High Court was wrong in A 
determining the value of the acquired land at Rs. 1,72,000 per acre; that the 
.... 
sale deeds of similar lands disclosed value at Rs. 29,000 and Rs. 37,000 per 
acre only; that an examination of the parties to the referred sale dee~s by 
-
the State is not essential in view of the decision of this Court in Land 
Acquisition Officer and Manda! Revenue Officer v. Narasaiah, [2001) 3 SCC B 
530 that the sale deed referred to by the respondent-claimants disclosing a 
value of Rs. 2,40,000 per acre pertain to the land situated near a main road; 
that the acquired lands were situated at some distance from any habitation 
or road; and that the rate or Rs. 30,000 per acre on account of potential value 
of the land is entirely speculative. 
c 
The respondent-claimants contended that the sale deeds produced by 
the appellant were photostat copies of the original sale deeds, which could 
not be admitted in evidence by the Court; that the sale deed relied upon was 
executed prior to the issue of notification under the Land Acquisition Act; 
and that the sale deed correctly reflected the market value of the acquired 
land as it pertained to land of similar nature. 
D 
Disposing of the appeal of the appellant and dismissing the appeals of 
;., 
the claimants, the Court. 
HELD : 1.1. It is not the law that a certified copy of a registered 
agreement for sale is inadmissible in evidence unless the parties to the E 
document are examined to prove it. That would be contrary to what Section 
77 read with Sections 74(2) and 76 of the Evidence Act, 1872 and more 
specifically Section 51-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 provide. As far 
as the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act are concerned, a certified copy 
of the registered sale deed is admissible in evidence and does not need to be F 
proved by calling a witness. It is open to the Court to accept the certified copy 
as reliable evidence, without examining parties to the documents. This does 
not however preclude the Court from re,jecting the transacti'ln itself as being 
malafide or sham provided such a challenge is laid before the Court. There 
was no allegation by the claimants that the sale deeds produced by the 
appellant did not represent genuine transactions and the High Court was in G 
error in refusing to consider the transactions evidenced therein merely 
because the parties to the documents were not examined. 
(1182-H; 1183-A-C; GI 
~ 
1.2. Although the references under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition 
Act had been decided on the basis of the sale deeds relied upon by the State, H 
1180

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