JUDGEMENT Manjunath, J. The appellant is challenging the judgement and award passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn), Puttur in LAC No. 17/1991. 2. Two acres 66 cents of land in Sy. No. 259/1 of Kemminje village, Puttur taluk, belonging to the claimants was acquired under a preliminary notification dated 29.3.1990 for the benefit of the appellant in order to establish a Cashew Research Centre. The LAO passed an award on 27.7.1991 determining the market value of the land in question at Rs. 350/- per cent. On the request of the claimants, a reference was sent to the reference Court. The reference Court, relying upon Ex. P.1 and on the ground that the LAO did not step into the witness box and no oral evidence was let in on behalf of the respondents, enhanced the market value from Rs. 350/- per cent to Rs. 3200/- per cent. Challenging the said judgement and award, the appellant filed an appeal before this Court in MFA No. 28/94. This Court, after hearing the parties, remanded the matter to the reference Court directing it to implead the appellant beneficiary as a respondent and to give an opportunity for him to let in evidence. 3. The reference Court, after remand, granted an opportunity for both the parties to let in further evidence. On behalf of the appellant, one of its officer was examined as R.W.1 and Ex. R1 to R5, certified copies of the sale deeds were marked to show the market value of the lands in the vicinity at the time of issuance of the preliminary notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. The reference Court, on the ground that the appellant herein did not examine the parties to the sale deeds and holding that a mere marking the sale deeds as Ex.R.1 to R5 does not amount to proof, rejected the contention of the appellant and confirmed the order passed by the reference Court earlier, by its judgement and award dated 16.10.2003. Being aggrieved by the judgement and award of the reference Court passed for the second time, the present appeal is filed. 4. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 5. Being aggrieved by the judgement and award of the reference Court passed for the second time, the present appeal is filed. 4. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 5. The learned Counsel for the appellant, placing reliance on Section 51A of the Land Acquisition Act, contends that the reference Court, without considering the aforesaid provision, rejected the evidence let in by the appellant viz., the documentary evidence marked as Ex.R. 1 to R. 5 and confirmed its earlier judgement and award. 6. Section 51-A of the Land Acquisition Act reads as hereunder: “51-A. Acceptance of certified copy as evidence.- 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 Section 57 of that Act, may be accepted as evidence of the transaction recorded in such document.” From reading of the aforesaid provision, it is clear that a certified copy of a document registered under the Registration Act, 1908 has to be accepted as evidence of the transaction recorded in such document. In other words, it is clear that a presumption is attached to the registered documents produced by the party to show the transaction recorded in such documents. It would be relevant to consider Ex. R.5 Ex.R.5 is a certified copy of the sale deed executed on 6.11.1990 in respect of 63 cents of converted land in Sy. No 274/1 of Kemminje village for a consideration of Rs. 31,500/- The land acquired in the present case is also situated in the same village in Sy. No. 259/1, but it is acquired 8 months prior to Ex. R.5 The land notified for acquisition in the instant case is dry land and not even a converted land as in Ex. R.5. Since the documents produced by the appellant are not considered by the reference Court, we are of the opinion that the impugned judgement and award has to be set aside and the matter requires to be reconsidered by the reference Court in the light of Ex.R.5 Considering that the land sold under Ex. R. 5 is a converted land and the land acquired in the present case in an agricultural dry land. R. 5 is a converted land and the land acquired in the present case in an agricultural dry land. It is also useful to observe that the reference Court has considered the development activities as on the date of reference, but what was required to be considered by it, is in regard to the nature of land and the development activities existed as on the date of preliminary notification. Subsequent to the preliminary notification, if any development activities have taken place, the same cannot be a ground or reason for a reference Court to determine the market value based on subsequent developments. Considering that the reference is of the year 1991, we direct the reference Court to dispose of the reference within a period of four months from today. Parties to bear their own costs. 7. At this stage, the learned Counsel for the respondents -claimants submits that an opportunity may be granted to the claimants to let in further evidence. If the claimants are desirous to lead further evidence, liberty is granted to them and similar liberty is also granted to the beneficiary. 8. The amount deposited by the appellant before the reference Court and payment made to the claimants pursuant to the order of this Court shall be subject to the outcome of the judgement and award of the reference Court.