ORDER : Doraiswamy Raju, B.N. Srikrishna, JJ. Delay condoned. 2. The application for substitution in CA No. 339 of 2000 is allowed. 3. Heard Mr Mukul Rohatgi, learned Additional Solicitor General for the appellants and Mr R.P. Bhatt, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents. We have been taken through by the learned counsel appearing on either side, to the relevant portions of the award passed by the Reference Court as well as the judgment of the High Court in these appeals. One glaring instance of infirmity which justifies our interference and remitting the matters for fresh consideration is that, relying upon the then prevailing nebulous position of law in the matter of proof of comparable sale deeds that they could not be relied upon to be of evidentiary value unless someone connected with the transaction or deed/document is examined before the Court to formally prove them, both the Reference Court as well as the High Court not only declined to place reliance but completely eliminated from consideration some of the materials, relevant and vital according to the learned Senior Counsel, for substantiating the case of the appellants. The determination by the Reference Court as well as the High Court seems to have been made after eschewing those materials. 4. The learned Senior Counsel for the respondents also indicated that the same manner of treatment has been meted out to the claimants also. 5. Having regard to the subsequent decision of this Court in Land Acquisition Officer & Mandal Revenue Officer v. V. Narasaiah, (2001) 3 SCC 530 and the fact that the principle laid down therein came to be reaffirmed once again by this Court in Land Acquiring Body v. Ramprasad H. Maharaj, (2007) 15 SCC 593 (three-Judge Bench), the documents of the nature envisaged under Section 51-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 deserve to be accepted in evidence and considered without a formal proof of the same by examining anyone connected with the transaction or the document, though it is ultimately for the Court to weigh all the pros and cons to decide whether such transaction is reliable or relevant for arriving at the real value of land acquired, the compensation in respect of which calls for consideration and adjudication. 6. 6. In the light of the above, the judgments of the High Court as well as the awards passed by the Reference Court in all these cases are set aside and the matters are remitted to the respective Reference Courts for being restored to file in their original numbers and dealt with afresh in accordance with the latest position of law, as indicated above after affording due opportunities to both the parties to vindicate their stand in the light of all the materials on record, including those which, in terms of Section 51-A and the decisions noticed supra, constitute evidence in the case. In view of the fact that the acquisition is of the year 1986, the Reference Court will do well to give top priority to the same and ensure expeditious disposal of the same within six months from the date of the restoration of the proceedings on its file. 7. Pending re-determination of the question of compensation by the Reference Court, no recovery proceedings shall be taken against the respondent claimants and the rights of both parties in this respect shall thereafter abide by the determination made by the Reference Court. No costs.