Short Note : 1. The plaintiff in the suit had challenged the acquisition of their land by the Municipal Committee Bilaspur. The trial had held that notification under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was bad resulting in the invalidity of the acquisition. The learned Additional District Judge, was of the view that notification under section 6 not being on the record, its validity had to be assumed. 2. The first appellate Court should not have drawn a presumption as to the validity of the notification merely on the basis that it was an official act. The bone of the contention in the case is that the notification under section 6 was void and it lacked the necessary particulars. When the notification was so challenged, it was not proper to decide the issue on its validity by drawing a presumption under section 114 of the Evidence Act. It would amount to avoiding the issue it had to try. The appellate Court ought to have held that the case could not be decided without bringing the notification on record when the question was whether a particular notification contained certain particulars or not, it was only just and proper that the Court had the notification before it rather than presume that the impugned notification had all the particulars in it. From the language of section 114 of the Evidence Act, it is clear that the Court was not bound to draw a presumption always. This is a fit case where permission ought to have been granted to the plaintiffs to file the notification and to prove it Appeal allowed.