Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 103 (ORI)

Biseswar Dandpat v. Saraswati Dei

2014-02-11

B.R.SARANGI

body2014
JUDGMENT Dr. B.R.SARANGI, J. - The plaintiff-petitioner has filed this writ application assailing the order dated 29.11.2006 in Annexure-1 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rairangpur in T.S.No. 23/1995 rejecting the application to exhibit the village maps. 2. The fact of the case in nut-shell is that the plaintiff-petitioner filed Title Suit No. 23/1995 before the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Rairangpur praying for declaration of title over Ac. 0.1 decimal of land as found by Civil Court Commissioner and delivering the possession of the same to him by evicting defendant Nos. 1 to 3 from the said area, his easementary right of way over path and injuncting defendants permanently not to interfere with his possession. The suit was decreed on 24.11.2000. Assailing the same, some of the defendants filed Title Appeal Nos. 1 of 2001 and 2 of 2001 before the Additional District Judge, Rairangpur. After hearing the parties, learned lower appellate Court remanded the matter to the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rairangpur with a direction to appoint a Civil Court Commissioner for measurement of the suit land afresh at the cost of the parties and dispose of the suit within six months. 3. After remand the plaintiff-petitioner filed an application before the Board of Revenue to obtain certified copy of the original map of mouza Bisoi and the plaintiff was accordingly directed to deposit the requisite amount to obtain the printed copy available for public sale. In view of the notification issued by the Board of Revenue dated 06.12.2003 indicating enhancement of cost of saleable maps with reference to the Government in Revenue Department letter No. 57031/2011 dated 04.02.2013 under Clause (1) wherein it is stated that village maps finally published under O.S. & S. Act and O.C.H. & P.F.L. Act, the present rate per sheet Rs. 10 has been revised rate per sheet to Rs. 25 and such notification has been issued by the Director of Land Records and Survey addressing to the various authorities of the Revenue Department. Accordingly, the plaintiff petitioner deposited the requisite fees for supply of the printed copy of the maps which has been supplied to him in conformity with the provisions of law. 4. On 09.11.2006 the plaintiff-petitioner filed 19 documents along with the said map before the trial Court to prove his case. Accordingly, the plaintiff petitioner deposited the requisite fees for supply of the printed copy of the maps which has been supplied to him in conformity with the provisions of law. 4. On 09.11.2006 the plaintiff-petitioner filed 19 documents along with the said map before the trial Court to prove his case. On consideration of the same, leaned trial Court by order dated 10.11.2006 exhibited other documents excluding the village maps in consequence thereof the plaintiff-petitioner filed a petition under Section 36 and 83 of the Evidence Act read with Section 151 CPC under Annexure-3 with a prayer to recall the order dated 10.11.2006 and to mark exhibit of both sabik and hal map of mouza Bisoi which has been rejected vide impugned order dated 29.11.2006 on the ground that maps produced by the plaintiff-petitioner do not contain signature with seal and the maps purchased from a competent authority cannot be suo motu exhibited without its formal proof when the defendants dispute the genuineness of the maps. 5. Mrs. S. Mohanty, learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner argued with vehemence that the map having been purchased inconsonance with the guideline issued by the Board of Revenue issuing a public document the same should have been marked as exhibits as per the provisions contained in Sections 36 and 83 of the Evidence Act. In support of her contention, she has relied upon the judgment in Secretary of State v. Chimanlal Jamnadas and others, AIR 1942 Bombay 161. 6. Mr. P.R.Barik, learned counsel for the defendant-opposite party No. 1 stated that the maps printed by the settlement authority contain the date of publication and signature of the settlement authority as required by the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act, 1962. In the instant case, such certificate is not available in the map. Therefore, the order passed by the learned trial Court is justified. 7. Considering the rival contentions of the parties and on perusing the record, it is to be considered whether the map granted by the competent authority can be marked as exhibits for just and proper adjudication of the suit in question. Therefore, the order passed by the learned trial Court is justified. 7. Considering the rival contentions of the parties and on perusing the record, it is to be considered whether the map granted by the competent authority can be marked as exhibits for just and proper adjudication of the suit in question. Section 36 of the Indian Evidence Act states as follows: "Relevancy of statements in maps, charts and plans - Statements of facts in issue or relevant facts, made in published map or charts generally offered for public sale, or in maps or plans made under the authority of the Central Government or any State Government, as to matters usually represented or stated in such maps, charts or plans, are themselves relevant facts." Section 87 of the Indian Evidence Act reads as follows: "Presumption as to books, maps and charts - The Court may presume that any book to which it may refer for information on matters of public or general interest and that any published map or chart, the statements of which are relevant facts, and which, is produced for its inspection, was written and published by the person, and at the time and place, by whom or at which it purports to have been written or published." In view of the provisions contained in Section 36 read with Section 87 of the Indian Evidence Act it is to be considered whether the map is a public document within the meaning of Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act. Referring to Section 36 of the Indian Evidence Act, the map which has been granted by the competent authority in consonance with the notifications issued by the Board of Revenue in Annexure-5 can be termed as official map which means 'in zoning and land use, the authorized' map for the determination of proper land use in the city or town, showing the zones and areas and their authorized uses'. Map or official maps can be taken into public document within the meaning of Section 74 of the Evidence Act. Therefore, which of the documents are to be public documents has been mentioned in Section 74 of the Evidence Act. The following documents are public documents (1) documents forming the acts or records of the acts; i. of the sovereign authority; ii. of official bodes and tribunals and; iii. Therefore, which of the documents are to be public documents has been mentioned in Section 74 of the Evidence Act. The following documents are public documents (1) documents forming the acts or records of the acts; i. of the sovereign authority; ii. of official bodes and tribunals and; iii. of public officers, legislative, judicial and executive, of any part of, or of the commonwealth other part of Her Majesty's dominions, or of a foreign country; (2) public records kept in any state of private documents. (Indian Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S. 74]. What constitute public document has also been considered in See also Manorama Srivastava v. Saroj Srivastava, AIR 1989 All 17 . A public document is such a document contents of which are of public interest and the statements are made by authorized and competent agents of the public in the course of their official duty. Public are interested in such a document and entitled to see it, so that if there is anything wrong in it they would be entitled to object. In that sense it becomes a statement that would be open to the public to challenge or dispute and therefore, it has a certain amount of authority. See New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Krishna Sharma, AIR 1998 Delhi 386, 388. With reference to the question of admissibility of a public document in evidence, the following observations were made by Lord BLACKBURN : There "should be a Public inquiry, a Public Document, and made by a Public Officer. I do not think that, 'Public' there, is to be taken in the sense of meaning of the whole world. I think an entry in the books of a Manor is 'public' in the sense that it concerns all the people interested in the manor and an entry, probably, in a Corporation book concerning a matter or something in which all the corporation is concerned would be 'public' within that sense. But must be a 'Public Document' and it must be made by a Public Officer. I understand a 'public document', there, to mean, a document that is made for the purpose of the public making use of it and being able to refer to it. It is meant to be where there is a judicial, or quasi judicial, duty to enquire. I understand a 'public document', there, to mean, a document that is made for the purpose of the public making use of it and being able to refer to it. It is meant to be where there is a judicial, or quasi judicial, duty to enquire. It should be made for the purpose of being kept public, so that the persons concerned in it may have access to it afterwards". (per BLACKBURN J. Sturla v. Freccia, 50 LJ Ch 96.- 5 App Cas 643, 644). 8. On when the touch stone of the contention raised now it is to be considered whether the learned Trial Court is justified in rejecting the application on the ground stated earlier with reference to the ground No.1 that the maps purchased by the plaintiff-petitioner which do not contain any certificate with seal and signature cannot be construed to be a public document to be marked as exhibit. The maps in question are prepared by the Revenue Department and the same are sold by the State Government pursuant to letter of Board of Revenue in Annexure-5 and more so the same is published by the Government and offered for sale. The maps in question are printed copy of the original purchased from the Government officers on payment of requisites fees. The said printed copy does not contain any certificate with seal and signature as it is not the certified copy. As per the provisions of Section 36 of the Indian Evidence Act, there are two types of maps, namely, published map or charts offered for public sale and maps and plans made under authority of Government. Therefore, Section 36 of the Evidence Act mandates that the statement of the facts in issue made in published maps generally offered for public sale themselves constitute to be a public document and the element of public document as enshrined in Section 74 of the Evidence Act is well founded. Therefore, under Section 83 of the Evidence Act, the Court must presume the same maps to be accurate purporting to be made by the authority of any State Government. Therefore, under Section 83 of the Evidence Act, the Court must presume the same maps to be accurate purporting to be made by the authority of any State Government. So far as rejection of the application on the ground that the maps purchased from competent authority cannot be suo motu exhibited without its formal proof when the defendants disputed genuineness of the map is concerned, the contention is that no formal proof is necessary as there is no dispute regarding genuineness of the documents, for the fact is that the document map has been purchased from the various sources of the State Government having competence over the same. The said documents are public document within the meaning of Section 74(1) (i) of the Indian Evidence Act. As the said document forming the acts of the sovereign authority, the same should have been admitted without any objection as primary evidence under Section 62 of the Evidence Act. When the competent authority has supplied the printed copy of the original on payment of requisite fees by virtue of letter under Annexure-5, it can be very well presumed to be accurate and the said printed maps are admissible in evidence as relevant under Sections 36 and 83 of the Evidence Act. The printed copy of the original is the public document within the meaning of Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act. In Secretary of State (supra), the Bombay High Court held that the printed copy of the original is the public document within the meaning of Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act. 9. In view of the aforesaid fact and law, the trial Court should not have rejected the prayer of the plaintiff-petitioner to exhibit both the Sabik and Hal maps and other documents without appreciating the facts that the same are imperative for effective adjudication of issue involved in the case. Hence the appellate Court remanded the case to the trial Court with an observation that the report of the Civil Court Commissioner is vitiated due to non supply of Sabik and Hal map and directed for appointment of a Civil Court Commissioner for measurement of the suit land afresh at the cost of the parties. Thus, the Sabik and Hal maps are most vital documents to be exhibited for adjudication of the dispute between the parties. Thus, the Sabik and Hal maps are most vital documents to be exhibited for adjudication of the dispute between the parties. Therefore, this Court sets aside the impugned order dated 29.06.2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rairangpur in T.S. No. 23 of 1995 under Annexure-1 rejecting the application to mark the maps as exhibits and directs the trial Court to exhibit both the Sabik and Hal maps of mouza Bisoi submitted by the plaintiff-petitioner for proper adjudication of the dispute in question. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No order to cost. Petition allowed.