ORDER 1. Civil Appeals Nos. 186-87 of 1998 have been preferred by the appellant Church of South India Trust Association, Armoor against the common judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad dated 18-12-1996 in Appeal No. 1582 of 1991 and cross-objections. 2. The Land Acquisition Officer also has preferred Special Leave Petition No. 3245 of 1999 impugning the same judgment and order. Notice was issued in the aforesaid special leave petition and we have heard counsel for the parties. Delay condoned. Leave granted. 3. With the consent of the counsel for the parties the appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 3245 of 1999 is also being disposed of along with CAs Nos. 186-87 of 1998. 4. A notification was •issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), published in the gazette on 24-10-1978. Possession of the land in question was taken on 5-1-1979. By his award made on 27-1-1983, the Land Acquisition Officer fixed the market value of the land in question at Rs 9000 per acre. The claimants sought a reference under Section 18 of the Act and claimed compensation @ Rs 175 per sq yd. After the matter was referred under Section 18 of the Act, the parties' produced evidence before the Reference Court in support of their respective claims. Before the Reference Court as many as 30 documents had been filed on behalf of the appellant Trust, namely, Exts. A-I to A-29 and Ext. X-I. The Land Acquisition Officer also examined oral evidence and got an award marked Ext. B-1. On consideration of the evidence on record, the Reference Court came to the conclusion that the market value of the acquired land was Rs 30 per sq yd and after deducting 20% (1/5th) for development expenses, awarded compensation @ Rs 24 per sq yd apart from the statutory benefits under the Act. 5. Aggrieved by the award of the Reference Court, the Land Acquisition Officer as well as the Trust preferred appeals before the High Court. 6. The High Court observed that only Ext. A-8 and Ext. X-I had been duly proved by examining a person connected with the transaction recorded in those documents. In this view of the matter, the High Court did not consider it necessary to consider the remaining documents. 6. The High Court observed that only Ext. A-8 and Ext. X-I had been duly proved by examining a person connected with the transaction recorded in those documents. In this view of the matter, the High Court did not consider it necessary to consider the remaining documents. Thus, the exhibits produced by the appellant Trust as evidence before the Reference Court, were not looked into and kept out of consideration by the High Court. Mr Shanti Bhushan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant Trust submitted that the High Court took this view having regard to the earlier judgments of this Court which had considered the legal implications of Section 51-A of the Act which came into force by way of amendment to the Act in the year 1984. He drew our attention to the judgment of this Court in Land Acquisition Officer & Mandai Revenue. Officer v. Narasaiahl and a later Constitution Bench decision of this Court in Cement Corpn. of India Ltd. v. Purya. Having regard to the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions, it could not be disputed before us by the parties that registered sale deeds of exemplars must be admitted in evidence and considered by the Court in accordance with the principles laid down in the aforesaid judgments. 7. Thus, we must conclude that evidence which was admissible under Section 51-A of the Act was kept out of consideration by the High Court and this has vitiated the judgment of the High Court. 8. We do not wish to refer to the facts of the case and the evidence on record lest it may prejudice the case of the parties because we propose to remit the matter to the High Court for a fresh consideration of the material on record in the light of the decisions of this Court. We should not be understood to have expressed any opinion on the merit of the matter and it will be open for the High Court to consider the evidence on record in accordance with law. 9. In the result, the impugned judgment and order of the High Court is set aside and the matter remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration of the appeals and the cross-objections in accordance with law. 9. In the result, the impugned judgment and order of the High Court is set aside and the matter remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration of the appeals and the cross-objections in accordance with law. Since the matter has been considerably delayed, we request the High Court to dispose of the appeals and cross-objections as early as possible. 10. The appeals are accordingly allowed. 11. No order as to the costs.