JUDGMENT A. Shankar Narayana, J. 1. This batch of appeals is preferred by the claimants - appellants, aggrieved of three common orders, dated 05-03-2007, passed by the learned principal Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal, in O.P. Nos.1525, 1448, 1536, 1446, 1523, 1540, 1510, 1441, 1511, 1516, 1541, 1514, 1445, 1521, 1505, 1512, 1544, 1529, 1449, 1520, 1524, 1509, 1539, 1519, 1515, 1545, 1522, 1444, 1442, 1517, 1538, 1527, 1513, 1518, 1543, 1443, 1447, 1526 and 1535 of 2003 arising out of Award No.1 of 1998; 56, 52, 53, 46, 49, 47, 50, 51, 55, 54 and 45 of 2004 arising out of Award No.2 of 1998; and 1408, 1528, 292, 1410, 304, 1451, 1450, 299, 1533, 1461, 1508, 1531, 1534, 297, 1415, 303, 291, 1532, 1452, 1456, 1457, 301, 1460, 1459, 1530, 1506, 1411, 1453, 1413, 1507, 1455, 1414, 1458, 307, 1409, 1412 and 1454 of 2003 arising out of Award No.3 of 1998, respectively. 2. Since the points in issue are common in this batch of appeals, they are dealt with together. 3. This batch of appeals is covered by three awards. A total extent of Acs.62-59 cents of land was acquired for the purpose of further extension of Maddur Major Block – IV of Srishailam Right Branch Canal (SRBC) under three awards bearing Nos.1, 2 and 3 of 1998, located at Konidedu village, Panyam Mandal, Kurnool District. 4. The dates of notifications are different, but the awards were passed on one and the same day. 5. Award No.1 of 1998 concerns with acquisition of Acs.28-41 cents of land belonging to the claimants - appellants, numbering 40. The notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”) was published on 04-01-1996. 6. The acquired lands, according to the appellants, were personally cultivated by them, twice in a year, by raising the crops, ground-nut, jowar, chillies and redgrams and used to get an income ranging from Rs.6,000/- to Rs.10,000/- and Rs.15,000/- to Rs.20,000/- per acre, respectively, through the water drawn from bore-wells, and, therefore, they sought the Land Acquisition Officer to fix the market value for the acquired land at Rs.2,00,000/- per acre. The Land Acquisition Officer divided the acquired lands into two categories and fixed the market value for the first category, which are dry lands, at Rs.30,000/- per acre, and for second category, which are dry lands irrigated with the water of wells and bore-wells, at Rs.56,000/- per acre, and, thereby, passed the award on 29-06-1998. 7. Award No.2 of 1998 concerns with acquisition of Acs.8-92 cents of land belonging to 12 claimants, for which notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued on 06-02-1997. The Land Acquisition Officer, taking into consideration various factors, fixed the market value of the land at Rs.25,000/- per acre, which are dry lands and passed the award on 29-06-1998. 8. Award No.3 concerns with acquisition of Acs.25-26 cents of land belonging to 38 appellants, for which notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published on 10-01-1996. The Land Acquisition Officer divided the land into two categories. For the first category of lands, which are dry lands, he fixed the market value at Rs.30,000/- per acre and for the second category, which are dry lands irrigated with the water of wells and bore-wells, at Rs.50,000/- per acre and passed the award on 29-06-1998. 9. Dissatisfied with the fixation of market value of the acquired land by the Land Acquisition Officer, appellants, having received the compensation under protest, made a request under Section 18 of the Act seeking reference, and the same was referred to the Civil Court. 10. During enquiry, before the reference Court, copy of Award Nos.1, 2 and 3 of 1998 were marked as Ex.A-1, respectively, on consent, on behalf of the Land Acquisition Officer. But, the Land Acquisition Officer concerned was not examined and no oral evidence was let in. 11. On behalf of the claimants, five witnesses were examined as RWs.1 to 5, and registration copy of sale deed, dated 05-11-1994, executed by G. Adinarayana Reddy and G. Vijaya Bhaskara Reddy in favour of Katasani Venkta Reddy, was exhibited as Ex.B-1, besides Exs.X-1 to X-14 were marked through RW.5 and 6. 12. 11. On behalf of the claimants, five witnesses were examined as RWs.1 to 5, and registration copy of sale deed, dated 05-11-1994, executed by G. Adinarayana Reddy and G. Vijaya Bhaskara Reddy in favour of Katasani Venkta Reddy, was exhibited as Ex.B-1, besides Exs.X-1 to X-14 were marked through RW.5 and 6. 12. The reference Court on appraisal of oral and documentary evidence, more particularly, Ex.B-1, registration copy of the sale deed, executed by RW.2 and his brother, in favour of RW.3, for an extent of Ac.1-00 comprised in Survey Nos.79 and 305 for a sale consideration of Rs.1,00,000/- and basing on the admissions of RW.2, who is one of the vendors under Ex.B-1, that the land covered by Ex.B-1 is more fertile than the land under acquisition and also on the ground that it was only a bit of land compared to the extent acquired, arrived at the finding that it cannot be construed as a comparable sale, in assessing the market value of the acquired land. However, the reference Court while observing that the value shown in Ex.B-1 cannot be adopted to fix the market value of the acquired land, but considered the nature of the land covered by Ex.B-1 for the limited purpose of proving that there has been increase in the value of the acquired land. The reference Court further observing that after formation of channel, the remaining farmers were richly benefitted as their dry lands were turned into wet lands at the cost of the ill-fated claimants, opined that it would be just and reasonable to fix the market value of the acquired land at Rs.45,000/- per acre for the first category of lands and Rs.85,000/-per acre for the second category of lands, and, accordingly, fixed the market value by enhancing the same from Rs.30,000/- per acre, fixed by the LAO, to Rs.45,000/- per acre and Rs.56,000/- per acre to Rs.85,000/- per acre, respectively, relating to the lands covered by award No.1 of 1998. 13. Since the evidence let in by the appellants before the reference Court in Award Nos.1, 2 and 3 of 1998 is common, we deem it unnecessary to refer to the discussion of the reference Court, in arriving at enhancement of the market value of the lands acquired, under Award Nos.2 and 3 of 1998, as it would be superfluous. 14. Since the evidence let in by the appellants before the reference Court in Award Nos.1, 2 and 3 of 1998 is common, we deem it unnecessary to refer to the discussion of the reference Court, in arriving at enhancement of the market value of the lands acquired, under Award Nos.2 and 3 of 1998, as it would be superfluous. 14. The reference Court enhanced the market value of the lands covered by Award No.2 of 1998 from Rs.25,000/- to Rs.40,000/- per acre. For the lands covered by Award No.3 of 1998, the reference Court enhanced the market value for the first category of lands from Rs.30,000/-to Rs.45,000/- per acre and for the second category of lands from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.80,000/-per acre. 15. Dissatisfied with the fixation of market value by the reference Court, appellants preferred the instant batch of appeals, contending that the reference Court having made an observation in paragraph No.18 of the order that the land covered by Ex.B-1 is also dry land and similar to the acquired land, the sale therein was long prior to the acquisition, the land is situated at some distance from the acquired land fetching Rs.1,00,000/-per acre in 1981 itself, certainly, there should be some increase in the land acquired after four years, ought not to have discarded Ex.B-1 from consideration. 16. It is stated that the reference Court also did not properly appreciate the evidence of RWs.4 and 5, who are Deputy Director of Agriculture and Junior Marketing Assistant and documentary evidence through Exs.X-1 to X-14, which clinchingly establish raising of wet crops in the acquired land and net income derived therefrom. 17. The appellants, therefore, claim that they are entitled for a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-per acre, but they mentioned in the grounds of appeal but they restricted their claim to Rs.1,00,000/-per acre and paid Court fee accordingly, and sought enhancement to that extent. 18. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the sale transaction covered by Ex.B-1, dated 05-11-1994, is proved in accordance with evidentiary rule by examining one of the vendors as RW.2 and the vendee as RW.3, whereunder Ac.1-00 of land was sold for a sale consideration of Rs.1,00,000/-, more than an year prior to the date of issue of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. The reference Court has not assigned any convincing reason in discarding the sale transaction under Ex.B-1, but, still, it relied on Ex.B-1 as per the observations made by it in paragraph No.18 of the order, which observations are to the effect that the land covered by Ex.B-1 is near and around the acquired land and also similar to the acquired land and having observed so, in emphatic terms, exclusion of Ex.B-1, from the purview of assessing the market value, is totally untenable. 19. His next contention is that the appellants examined RWs.5 and 6, who are retired Deputy Director of Agriculture and Junior Marketing Assistant, respectively, for proving the quantum of yield from the lands under acquisition. But, the reference Court has not considered their evidence and Exs.X-1 to X-14, without assigning any reasons, despite the fact that their evidence clinchingly establishes as to raising of wet crops in the acquired land and the net income derived from the acquired lands. Therefore, it is his submission that the acquired lands would fetch at least Rs.1,00,000/- per acre, on the basis of Ex.B-1, though, the time lag between the sale transaction of Ex.B-1 and the issue of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, was more than one year. Hence, sought to allow the appeals as requested. 20. Learned Government Pleader, inter alia, contends that the market value fixed by the reference Court is based on appreciation of evidence on record and it is just and reasonable compensation that has been awarded by the reference Court and there are no grounds to enhance the market value. It is his submission that the evidence on record through PWs.1 to 3 would in unmistakable terms reflect that the land covered by Ex.B-1 sale deed is not similar to the land acquired and even the acquired land is not situated within the vicinity of the land covered by Ex.B-1, and, therefore, the sale transaction under Ex.B-1 cannot be construed as a comparable sale, and, therefore, there are no grounds to enhance the market value. 21. The appellants are resting their claim wholly on Ex.B-1, the sale deed, dated 05-11-1994, executed by G. Adinarayana Reddy and G. Vijaya Bhaskara Reddy in favour of Katasani Venkata Reddy, for a total sale consideration of Rs.1,00,000/-. 21. The appellants are resting their claim wholly on Ex.B-1, the sale deed, dated 05-11-1994, executed by G. Adinarayana Reddy and G. Vijaya Bhaskara Reddy in favour of Katasani Venkata Reddy, for a total sale consideration of Rs.1,00,000/-. The description of property mentioned in the schedule shows that an extent of Ac.0-50 cents covered by Survey No.79, and another extent of Ac.0-50 cents covered by Survey No.305, located in Konidedu Village, were sold for a total consideration of Rs.1.00 lakh. It is true, one of the vendors G. Adinarayana Reddy, is examined as RW.2 and the vendee under Ex.B-1 is examined as RW.3 and they did speak to execution of Ex.B-1 for consideration, but, the entire controversy revolves around whether Ex.B-1 sale can be construed as a genuine and comparable sale. 22. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the Land Acquisition Officer has not taken the stand that Ex.B-1 is a got up document for the purpose of claiming enhanced compensation and even PWs.2 and 3 were not confronted with any suggestion, in that direction by the learned Assistant Government Pleader and in such an event, there cannot be any plausible reason to exclude Ex.B-1 from the purview of determining the market value for the acquired lands. Even sought to take aid of the provisions of Section 51-A of the Act, contending that Ex.B-1 is a certified copy and since admitted and marked as a document on behalf of the appellants, even in the absence of evidence of Rws.2 and 3, transaction recorded in Ex.B-1, shall be presumed to be true and since there is no rebuttal from the respondent side, Ex.B-1 ought to be taken as an exemplar sale, and, in which event, to adopt the sale value mentioned therein for the acquired lands in fixing the market value. 23. We, no doubt, agree with the said submission to the extent that PWs.2 and 3 were not suggested that Ex.B-1 was brought into existence for the purpose of claiming enhanced compensation, but certain other circumstances, which occur in the instant case, would convince us to arrive at the view, that it is unsafe to accept and act upon Ex.B-1, which we would like to refer to henceforth. 24. Before taking up the said probabilities, we deem it appropriate to deal with the scope and evidentiary value of the documents produced under Section 51-A of the Act. 24. Before taking up the said probabilities, we deem it appropriate to deal with the scope and evidentiary value of the documents produced under Section 51-A of the Act. In this context, we also deem it appropriate to place reliance on the decision rendered by a Constitutional Bench of Hon’ble Apex court in Cement Corporation of India Limited. v. Purya and others (2004) 8 SCC 270 ), wherein explaining the meaning of the term “acceptance of evidence” occurring in Section 51-A of the Act and use of the word “may”, held in paragraph Nos.27 and 28, thus: “27. Although by reason of the aforementioned provision the parties are free to produce original documents and prove the same in accordance with the terms of the rules of evidence as envisaged under the Indian Evidence Act, the LA Act provides for an alternative thereto by inserting the said provision in terms whereof the certified copies which are otherwise secondary evidence may be brought on record evidencing a transaction. Such transactions in terms of the aforementioned provision may be accepted in evidence. Acceptance of an evidence is not a term of art. It has an etymological meaning. It envisages exercise of judicial mind to the materials on record. Acceptance of evidence by a court would be dependent upon the facts of the case and other relevant factors. A piece of evidence in a given situation may be accepted by a court of law but in another it may not be. 28. Section 51-A of the LA Act may be read literally and having regard to the ordinary meaning which can be attributed to the term 'acceptance of evidence' relating to transaction evidenced by a sale deed, its admissibility in evidence would be beyond any question. We are not oblivious of the fact that only by bringing a documentary evidence in the record it is not automatically brought on the record. For bringing a documentary evidence on the record, the same must not only be admissible but the contents thereof must be proved in accordance with law. But when the statute enables a court to accept a sale deed on the records evidencing a transaction, nothing further is required to be done. For bringing a documentary evidence on the record, the same must not only be admissible but the contents thereof must be proved in accordance with law. But when the statute enables a court to accept a sale deed on the records evidencing a transaction, nothing further is required to be done. The admissibility of a certified copy of sale deed by itself could not be held to be inadmissible as thereby a secondary evidence has been brought on record without proving the absence of primary evidence. Even the vendor or vendee thereof is not required to examine themselves for proving the contents thereof. This, however, would not mean that contents of the transaction as evidenced by the registered sale deed would automatically be accepted. The legislature advisedly has used the word 'may'. A discretion, therefore, has been conferred upon a court to be exercised judicially, i.e. upon taking into consideration the relevant factors.” 25. It is, therefore, clear that the contents of transaction as evidenced by the registered sale deed need not automatically be accepted and a discretion has been conferred upon a Court to be exercised judiciously by taking into consideration the relevant factors. 26. We now refer to the factors, which are relevant to support our view that it is unsafe to accept and act upon Ex.B-1. 27. First, the award Nos.1, 2 and 3 of 1998 are marked on consent as Ex.A-1, draft award, dated 29-06-1998, in the respective L.A.O.Ps, which shows that the Executive Engineer, SRBC, Division No..., Nandyal, had sent a requisition vide his letter No.Ds/D2/147-M, dated 17-02-1992, for acquisition of land to an extent of Acs.25-26 cents in the village limits of Konidedu of Panyam Mandal, for further extension of Maddur Major Block – IV of Srishailam Right Branch Canal (SRBC). Under the side heading “SUB-DIVISION RECORDS”, it is mentioned that the lands so requisitioned were got surveyed, subdivided and sub-division records prepared by the Special Surveyor of the office of the Special Deputy Collector, (Land Acquisition) SRBC, Nandyal, got pre-scrutinised by the Deputy Inspector of Survey and Land Records, Nandyal, on 04-06-1994 and has given the details of patta lands as per the sub-division records pre-scrutinised, which are involved under acquisition. It is pertinent to mention here that the entire process was completed by 04-06-1994 as the records were also prepared and pre-scrutinised by that date. It is pertinent to mention here that the entire process was completed by 04-06-1994 as the records were also prepared and pre-scrutinised by that date. Thus, the process for acquisition of the lands for the said purpose which was initiated on 17-02-1992, concluded with preparation of preliminary report by 04-06-1994, with all relevant details for issuance of notifications under Section 4(1) of the Act. 28. Ex.B-1 is dated 05-11-1994. It is no doubt true the draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued on 04-01-1996, 06-02-1997 and 10-01-1996, respectively, and Ex.B-1 precedes the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. But, however, the preliminary report was already prepared, based on sub-division records that were prepared, further preceded by the survey of lands under acquisition, but the sale transaction under Ex.B-1 was subsequent to 04-06-1994, by which date, the entire exercise of identifying the extents by survey and sub-dividing them and preparing sub-division records was done. Thus, it is clear that Ex.B-1 sale transaction, since transpired, five months subsequent to pre-scrutiny by the Deputy Inspector of Survey and Land Records, Nandyal, it cannot be ruled out that Ex.B-1 was entered into with a view to claim enhanced compensation. It is not as though, this observation of ours, is not supported by any material on record. One of the vendors of Ex.B-1, by name G. Vijayabhaskara Reddy is also one of the appellants in these claims i.e., A.S. No.606 of 2007. This circumstance, therefore, attains great significance in viewing that Ex.B-1 must have been entered into with a view to claim more compensation which accounts for second probability. 29. Third, there is yet another circumstance that strengthens our reasoning to view that the sale transaction under Ex.B-1 with suspicion, is the sale statistics collected and considered by the Land Acquisition Officer find place at page No.6 of the award. They stretch over a period for three years from 23-01-1993 to 22-01-1996. We intend to extract the table given by the Land Acquisition Officer with relevant details. The same is as hereunder: “SALE STATISTICS OF KONIDEDU VILLAGE OF PANYAM MANDAL FROM 23-1-93 to 22-1-96. “TABLE” - THERE ARE NO SALES FROM 23-1-93 TO 14-4-93 “TABLE” - THERE ARE NO SALES FROM 12-5-94 TO 28-6-94 “TABLE” - THERE ARE NO SALES FROM 9-1-96 to 22-1-96” 30. The same is as hereunder: “SALE STATISTICS OF KONIDEDU VILLAGE OF PANYAM MANDAL FROM 23-1-93 to 22-1-96. “TABLE” - THERE ARE NO SALES FROM 23-1-93 TO 14-4-93 “TABLE” - THERE ARE NO SALES FROM 12-5-94 TO 28-6-94 “TABLE” - THERE ARE NO SALES FROM 9-1-96 to 22-1-96” 30. A thorough scanning of these transactions would reveal that the highest price fetched per acre was Rs.28,846/-, shown against Serial No.4, which relates to a sale transaction, dated 04-05-1993, of an extent of Acs.2-08 cents in Survey No.356, for a total sale consideration of Rs.60,000/- of the same village, after excluding the sale transaction under Ex.B-1, dated 05-11-1994, shown against Serial No.16. Further interesting fact is that even subsequent to the date of Ex.B-1, the sale transactions from Serial Nos.17 to 23, covering the period from 18-01-1995 to 08-01-1996, the prices fetched were ranging between Rs.9,433/- to Rs.16,000/- per acre in the same village. Thus, except the sale transaction against Serial No.16, which is the subject matter of Ex.B-1, none of the other sales transactions would show that the value was nowhere nearer to Rs.1,00,000/- per acre. 31. Now we turn to the question whether this Court can take the sales statistics mentioned in the award? 32. We would like to answer it in affirmative. The law is well settled on the subject that in case the appellants intend to rely on any of the sale transactions referred to by the Land Acquisition Officer, it is incumbent upon the claimant to exhibit the registration copy of the sale deed or the original thereof and examine either party to the sale transaction. The only concession given is provided through the provisions of Section 51-A of the Act, which envisages the very submission and marking of either the original or certified copy of the sale deed would suffice to rely on by the claimant to claim compensation. 33. Learned counsel for the appellants, no doubt, contended that the Land Acquisition Officer was not examined and RWs.1 to 3 were not confronted with anything touching the sale transaction under Ex.B-1, in the direction that it was brought into existence purposely for claiming enhanced compensation, and, in such an event, Ex.B-1 sale transaction cannot at all be discarded. 33. Learned counsel for the appellants, no doubt, contended that the Land Acquisition Officer was not examined and RWs.1 to 3 were not confronted with anything touching the sale transaction under Ex.B-1, in the direction that it was brought into existence purposely for claiming enhanced compensation, and, in such an event, Ex.B-1 sale transaction cannot at all be discarded. But, in our view, that submission, cannot be given any weight, since we intend to rely on certain observations made by the Hon’ble Apex court in M/s. Nyvely Lignite Corporation Limited v. Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), Neyvely and others ( AIR 1995 SC 1004 ). Though the Hon’ble Apex Court was dealing with the request to condone the abnormal delay in preferring the appeal by the Land Acquisition Officer, at the same time, the observations made would become relevant as they touch the callous attitude on the part of the Governmental agencies, in defending the claims. We deem it appropriate to extract the observations contained in paragraph No.12, thus: “The reasons are not far to seek. It is notorious that though the stakes involved are heavy, the Govt. plead or the instructing officer do not generally adduce, much less proper and relevant, evidence to rebut the claims for higher compensation. Even the cross-examination will be formal, haulting and ineffective. Generally, if not invariably the Governmental agencies involved in the process take their own time and many a time in collusion, file the appeals after abnormal or inordinate delay. They remain insensitive even if the stakes involved run into several crores of public money. The Courts insist upon proper explanation of every day's delay. In this attitudinal situation it would be difficult to meet strict standards to fill the unbridgeable gaps of the delay in filing the appeals and generally entail with dismissal of the appeals at the threshold without adverting to the merits in the hike in the compensation. On other hand if the notice is issued to the local authority etc. it/they would participate in the award proceedings under Sections 11 and 18 adduce necessary and relevant evidence and be heard before the Collector and the Court before determining compensation. For instance that without considering the evidence in the proper perspective, the Court determined the compensation.” 34. On other hand if the notice is issued to the local authority etc. it/they would participate in the award proceedings under Sections 11 and 18 adduce necessary and relevant evidence and be heard before the Collector and the Court before determining compensation. For instance that without considering the evidence in the proper perspective, the Court determined the compensation.” 34. In this context, we also like to refer to an unreported decision, rendered by a Division Bench of Madras High Court, in The Land Acquisition Officer v. M. Mahalingam (dated 06-04-2010). In the said case, the State Government Pleader appearing for the Land Acquisition Officer, who was also representing the Divisional Engineer, National Highways. In that context, the Division Bench while placing reliance on the afore-extracted observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court in NyvelyLignite Corporation Limited’s Case (Supra 2), commented thus: “We do not think that the State Government Pleader can effectively represent the Union of India or National Highways Authorities of India. As held by the Supreme Court, the LAO who was represented by the State Government Pleader do not generally adduce evidence much less proper and relevant evidence to rebut the claim for higher compensation. Even the cross-examination will be formal and ineffective or at time, no evidence at all would be adduced.” 35. In this batch of appeals also, we find that the Land Acquisition Officer remained insensitive for the reasons that the respondent did not step into the witness box to substantiate determination of market value and the award of compensation fixed by him. We have no hesitation in observing that the cross-examination done by the Assistant Government Pleader is only formal and ineffective. Though, the lands under acquisition were pre-scrutinised by 04-06-1994 and the further fact that G. Vijaya Bhaskara Reddy is also one of the appellants, and thus interested in getting enhanced compensation, which by necessary implication has to be inferred, were ignored by the learned Assistant Government Pleader, which exposes that he did not even go through the award contents and the basic factors associated with Ex.B-1 to confront RWs.1 to 3, support our comment on the conductance of claim by the Land Acquisition Officer. 36. For the reasons assigned herein before, we have no hesitation to hold that the orders under challenge, do not suffer from any illegality warranting interference. 37. Therefore, the batch of appeals is dismissed upholding the orders under challenge. 36. For the reasons assigned herein before, we have no hesitation to hold that the orders under challenge, do not suffer from any illegality warranting interference. 37. Therefore, the batch of appeals is dismissed upholding the orders under challenge. There shall be no order as to costs. 38. As a sequel thereto, Miscellaneous Applications, if any, pending in this batch of appeals, stand disposed of.