Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 508 (KER)

State of Kerala v. Padmanabha Iyer

2000-09-23

K.A.ABDUL GAFOOR, KURIAN JOSEPH

body2000
JUDGMENT 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 ). 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. 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 be relied on, should form part of the records of the court and / or independence evidence should be led as to the circumstances in which the document was executed. The Bench decision of this Court went a step farther and held that the Land Acquisition Officer cannot claim any better treatment than that of the claimant when the claimant had a duty to prove any document by adducing independent and reliable evidence, by examining witnesses to prove the document. We are afraid, the said ratio may not be the correct proposition of law. 5. The Supreme Court has in fact considered this question in P. Ram Reddy v. Land Acquisition Officer, 1995 (2) SCC 305 ). At Para.7 of the said judgment questions were formulated for detailed consideration. Question No. 5, as a matter of fact, dealt with the issue. Dealing with the admission of certified copies under S.51A of the Land Acquisition Act, the Supreme Court considered this question at Para.19 of the said judgment. The relevant portion is extracted below: "........... Therefore, the certified copies of registered documents, though accepted as evidence of transactions recorded in such documents, the court is not bound to act upon the contents of those documents unless persons connected with such documents give evidence in court as regards them and such evidence is accepted by the court as true. But when the LAO or the Collector has made his award based on the contents of documents, as found in the registers kept under the Registration Act and produces registration copies of such documents in support of his award in court, they could be regarded acceptable as evidence by court given in support of the award unless it is shown by contra evidence on behalf of the claimants that such documents could into have been relied upon by the Collector or LAO in making the award. It would be so for the reason that when the LAO produces in court registration (certified) copies of those documents which he had made the basis for determining the market value, that would be only to support his award and not to establish something independent of the award. If that be so, when such documents are produced on behalf of the LAO in court, they cannot be rejected on the ground that the witnesses associated with those documents cannot be examined by the LAO, inasmuch as even without producing such documents he can rely upon the award made by him to show that he had looked into those documents and he had determined the market value on their basis. Hence, the mere fact that witnesses associated with such certified copies of documents produced as evidence in court were not examined on behalf of the LAO will not in any way affect the award of the LAO if he has determined the market value of the acquired land having perused those documents as found in the registers kept under the Registration Act or their certified copies before determining the market value of those lands on the basis of such documents." 6. Thus, it can be seen that the Land Acquisition Act really makes a difference in the matter of tendering evidence between the Land Acquisition Officer and the claimant. While the claimant is bound to prove his case by adducing evidence, either documentary or oral, and in cases of documentary evidence, by proving the documents on examining the required witnesses, it is not so in the case of Land Acquisition Officer when the said Officer relies on the basic document, banking on which the award was made. When the Land Acquisition Officer produces in court the certified copies of the basic documents, the sole purpose is to support his award and not for establishing something else also. In such circumstances, such basic documents when produced by land Acquisition Officer cannot be refused to be looked into on the ground that the required witnesses to prove the circumstances leading to the execution of those documents were not examined by him. It is for the claimant to rebut that evidence by appropriate contra evidence. In such circumstances, such basic documents when produced by land Acquisition Officer cannot be refused to be looked into on the ground that the required witnesses to prove the circumstances leading to the execution of those documents were not examined by him. It is for the claimant to rebut that evidence by appropriate contra evidence. Merely because the Land Acquisition Officer did not examine the witnesses associated with the execution of the basic documents, certified copies of which were produced by the Land Acquisition Officer before court, the award passed by the said Officer will not be interfered with by the Court, if he has determined the market value of the land acquired by him after having properly perused those documents. 7. It may be seen that Ram Reddy's case was not referred in Narayana Rao's case which is relied on in 1999 (2) KLT 613 . Moreover, Narayana Rao's case has not dealt with the issue in detail whereas the entire aspects leading to the matter have been discussed by posing a question in that regard and after elaborately considering those aspects only the decision was taken in Ram Reddy's case. It is also significant to note that in Narayana Rao's case it was only an order passed at the time of dismissal of a Special Leave Petition whereas in Ram Reddy's case it was a full fledged judgment in Civil Appeals. Hence we are constrained to observe that the decision in 1999 (2) KLT 613 is one rendered per incuriam and in such circumstances, we do not deem it necessary to refer the matter to a larger Bench. We hold that the Land Acquisition Officer before a reference court stands on a different footing altogether in the matter of relying on the basic document leading to the making of the award. By the mere production of the basic document it has to be taken that the contents of the said document have been proved and it is for the claimant, if he deems it necessary to rebut the same by contra evidence. By the mere production of the basic document it has to be taken that the contents of the said document have been proved and it is for the claimant, if he deems it necessary to rebut the same by contra evidence. In other words, while a claimant before the reference court is bound to prove the document produced by him on examining the witnesses associated with the execution of the document, in the case of Land Acquisition Officer when he produces the certified copy of the registered document based on which the award was made, it is not necessary to examine any associated witness to prove the contents of the document. 8. Now we will examine the facts of the case. An extent of 13.18 Acres of land comprised in Sy. No. 7/3 of Randamada Village was acquired for the construction of water supply main through Kowdiar Palace compound. S.3(1) notification was issued on 15.4.1977, advance possession was taken on 30.4.1982 and award was passed on 1.9.1986 fixing the land value at the rate of Rs. 4481/- per Are. There was no objection on the part of the claimant at the time of acquisition. However, in the written statement filed before the reference court on 7.10.1993, Rs. 30,000/- per cent was claimed as market value. On behalf of the claimant Exts. A1 and A2 documents were marked and on behalf of the Land Acquisition Officer Exts. R1 to R4 were marked. The additional claimant examined himself as the sole witness and on behalf of the Land Acquisition Officer, the concerned Village Officer who prepared the detailed valuation statement was examined as RW 1. The reference court, relying on Ext. A2 judgment in L. A. R. No. 203 of 1986 of the Additional Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram dealing with the acquisition of a neighbouring property, awarded land value at the rate of Rs. 14,000/- per Are. That apart, the statutory benefits were also granted. Aggrieved by the said award, the State has filed the present appeal. 9. Disregarding the evidence tendered on behalf of the Land Acquisition Officer, the court below strained itself and relied on Ext. A2 judgment in L. A. R . No. 203 of 1986. But it has to be noted that the said award pertained to an acquisition where S.3(1) notification was on 23.11.1982 whereas in the present case the S.3(1) notification is dated 15.4.1977. A2 judgment in L. A. R . No. 203 of 1986. But it has to be noted that the said award pertained to an acquisition where S.3(1) notification was on 23.11.1982 whereas in the present case the S.3(1) notification is dated 15.4.1977. Moreover, the extent of land covered by Ext. A2 was comparatively a smaller extent of 5.81 Acres whereas in the case under appeal the extent is 13.18 acres. On behalf of the Land Acquisition Officer, the basic document was produced as Ext. R1, the valuation statement as Ext. R2, the group sketch as Ext. R3 and the mahazar as Ext. R4. That apart, it has also come out in the evidence of RW 1 that the acquired property and the property covered by the basic document are similar in nature. Interestingly, the court below itself has appreciated this aspect as follows: "But it can be seen from Ext. R3 that the property under acquisition as well as the property covered by Ext. R1 are lying close to each their and similarly situated." This evidence has not been rebutted by the contra evidence of the claimant. 10. Evidentiary value of basic document produced by the Land Acquisition Officer being as stated above, we are of the view that the court below erred in not accepting the evidence of the Land Acquisition Officer. Since the reference court was satisfied as to the similarity and also nearness of the two properties, there was no reason why such satisfaction should have been ignored by the court below and that too by relying on an award where S.3(1) notification was published after more than four years. In such circumstances, the judgment and decree of the court below are set aside and the appeal is allowed. JUDGMENT 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. JUDGMENT 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 ). 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. 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 be relied on, should form part of the records of the court and / or independence evidence should be led as to the circumstances in which the document was executed. The Bench decision of this Court went a step farther and held that the Land Acquisition Officer cannot claim any better treatment than that of the claimant when the claimant had a duty to prove any document by adducing independent and reliable evidence, by examining witnesses to prove the document. We are afraid, the said ratio may not be the correct proposition of law. 5. The Supreme Court has in fact considered this question in P. Ram Reddy v. Land Acquisition Officer, 1995 (2) SCC 305 ). At Para.7 of the said judgment questions were formulated for detailed consideration. Question No. 5, as a matter of fact, dealt with the issue. Dealing with the admission of certified copies under S.51A of the Land Acquisition Act, the Supreme Court considered this question at Para.19 of the said judgment. The relevant portion is extracted below: "........... Therefore, the certified copies of registered documents, though accepted as evidence of transactions recorded in such documents, the court is not bound to act upon the contents of those documents unless persons connected with such documents give evidence in court as regards them and such evidence is accepted by the court as true. But when the LAO or the Collector has made his award based on the contents of documents, as found in the registers kept under the Registration Act and produces registration copies of such documents in support of his award in court, they could be regarded acceptable as evidence by court given in support of the award unless it is shown by contra evidence on behalf of the claimants that such documents could into have been relied upon by the Collector or LAO in making the award. It would be so for the reason that when the LAO produces in court registration (certified) copies of those documents which he had made the basis for determining the market value, that would be only to support his award and not to establish something independent of the award. If that be so, when such documents are produced on behalf of the LAO in court, they cannot be rejected on the ground that the witnesses associated with those documents cannot be examined by the LAO, inasmuch as even without producing such documents he can rely upon the award made by him to show that he had looked into those documents and he had determined the market value on their basis. Hence, the mere fact that witnesses associated with such certified copies of documents produced as evidence in court were not examined on behalf of the LAO will not in any way affect the award of the LAO if he has determined the market value of the acquired land having perused those documents as found in the registers kept under the Registration Act or their certified copies before determining the market value of those lands on the basis of such documents." 6. Thus, it can be seen that the Land Acquisition Act really makes a difference in the matter of tendering evidence between the Land Acquisition Officer and the claimant. While the claimant is bound to prove his case by adducing evidence, either documentary or oral, and in cases of documentary evidence, by proving the documents on examining the required witnesses, it is not so in the case of Land Acquisition Officer when the said Officer relies on the basic document, banking on which the award was made. When the Land Acquisition Officer produces in court the certified copies of the basic documents, the sole purpose is to support his award and not for establishing something else also. In such circumstances, such basic documents when produced by land Acquisition Officer cannot be refused to be looked into on the ground that the required witnesses to prove the circumstances leading to the execution of those documents were not examined by him. It is for the claimant to rebut that evidence by appropriate contra evidence. In such circumstances, such basic documents when produced by land Acquisition Officer cannot be refused to be looked into on the ground that the required witnesses to prove the circumstances leading to the execution of those documents were not examined by him. It is for the claimant to rebut that evidence by appropriate contra evidence. Merely because the Land Acquisition Officer did not examine the witnesses associated with the execution of the basic documents, certified copies of which were produced by the Land Acquisition Officer before court, the award passed by the said Officer will not be interfered with by the Court, if he has determined the market value of the land acquired by him after having properly perused those documents. 7. It may be seen that Ram Reddy's case was not referred in Narayana Rao's case which is relied on in 1999 (2) KLT 613 . Moreover, Narayana Rao's case has not dealt with the issue in detail whereas the entire aspects leading to the matter have been discussed by posing a question in that regard and after elaborately considering those aspects only the decision was taken in Ram Reddy's case. It is also significant to note that in Narayana Rao's case it was only an order passed at the time of dismissal of a Special Leave Petition whereas in Ram Reddy's case it was a full fledged judgment in Civil Appeals. Hence we are constrained to observe that the decision in 1999 (2) KLT 613 is one rendered per incuriam and in such circumstances, we do not deem it necessary to refer the matter to a larger Bench. We hold that the Land Acquisition Officer before a reference court stands on a different footing altogether in the matter of relying on the basic document leading to the making of the award. By the mere production of the basic document it has to be taken that the contents of the said document have been proved and it is for the claimant, if he deems it necessary to rebut the same by contra evidence. By the mere production of the basic document it has to be taken that the contents of the said document have been proved and it is for the claimant, if he deems it necessary to rebut the same by contra evidence. In other words, while a claimant before the reference court is bound to prove the document produced by him on examining the witnesses associated with the execution of the document, in the case of Land Acquisition Officer when he produces the certified copy of the registered document based on which the award was made, it is not necessary to examine any associated witness to prove the contents of the document. 8. Now we will examine the facts of the case. An extent of 13.18 Acres of land comprised in Sy. No. 7/3 of Randamada Village was acquired for the construction of water supply main through Kowdiar Palace compound. S.3(1) notification was issued on 15.4.1977, advance possession was taken on 30.4.1982 and award was passed on 1.9.1986 fixing the land value at the rate of Rs. 4481/- per Are. There was no objection on the part of the claimant at the time of acquisition. However, in the written statement filed before the reference court on 7.10.1993, Rs. 30,000/- per cent was claimed as market value. On behalf of the claimant Exts. A1 and A2 documents were marked and on behalf of the Land Acquisition Officer Exts. R1 to R4 were marked. The additional claimant examined himself as the sole witness and on behalf of the Land Acquisition Officer, the concerned Village Officer who prepared the detailed valuation statement was examined as RW 1. The reference court, relying on Ext. A2 judgment in L. A. R. No. 203 of 1986 of the Additional Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram dealing with the acquisition of a neighbouring property, awarded land value at the rate of Rs. 14,000/- per Are. That apart, the statutory benefits were also granted. Aggrieved by the said award, the State has filed the present appeal. 9. Disregarding the evidence tendered on behalf of the Land Acquisition Officer, the court below strained itself and relied on Ext. A2 judgment in L. A. R . No. 203 of 1986. But it has to be noted that the said award pertained to an acquisition where S.3(1) notification was on 23.11.1982 whereas in the present case the S.3(1) notification is dated 15.4.1977. A2 judgment in L. A. R . No. 203 of 1986. But it has to be noted that the said award pertained to an acquisition where S.3(1) notification was on 23.11.1982 whereas in the present case the S.3(1) notification is dated 15.4.1977. Moreover, the extent of land covered by Ext. A2 was comparatively a smaller extent of 5.81 Acres whereas in the case under appeal the extent is 13.18 acres. On behalf of the Land Acquisition Officer, the basic document was produced as Ext. R1, the valuation statement as Ext. R2, the group sketch as Ext. R3 and the mahazar as Ext. R4. That apart, it has also come out in the evidence of RW 1 that the acquired property and the property covered by the basic document are similar in nature. Interestingly, the court below itself has appreciated this aspect as follows: "But it can be seen from Ext. R3 that the property under acquisition as well as the property covered by Ext. R1 are lying close to each their and similarly situated." This evidence has not been rebutted by the contra evidence of the claimant. 10. Evidentiary value of basic document produced by the Land Acquisition Officer being as stated above, we are of the view that the court below erred in not accepting the evidence of the Land Acquisition Officer. Since the reference court was satisfied as to the similarity and also nearness of the two properties, there was no reason why such satisfaction should have been ignored by the court below and that too by relying on an award where S.3(1) notification was published after more than four years. In such circumstances, the judgment and decree of the court below are set aside and the appeal is allowed.