State of Kerala vs Chalil Saidali

P.A. Mohammed, J.—These two appeals are from the judgments and Decrees of the Sub Court, Kozhikode in L.A.R. Nos. 338/93 and 99/94 respectively. In L.A.R. No. 338/93 the judgment in L.A.R. No. 99/94 from which L.A.A. No. 1655/98 arose is relied on. Therefore we will first deal with L.A.A. No. 1655 of 1998 as the main appeal to be decided.

Heard the Government Pleader for the Appellants. We also heard the Counsel who appeared for the claimants.

The notification involved in L.A.R. No. 99/94 was published on 13th March 1991. As per the award the Land Acquisition Officer fixed the land value at the rate of Rs. 2,908 per cent as against the claim at the rate of Rs. 20,000 per cent. However, in reference the Court below enhanced the land value and refixed the same at Rs. 7,500 per cent. The State being aggrieved by the said fixtaion has filed the appeal, L.A.A. No. 1655/98.

The Government Pleader points out that the Court below has relied on Exts. A-1 and A-2 sale deeds for determining the land value. According to him, Exts. A-1 and A-2 have not been legally proved inasmuch as neither the vendee nor the vendor of the documents was examined before the Court below. As per Ext. A-1 sale deed 9 cents of land was sold for Rs. 45,000, that is to say, at the rate of Rs. 5,000 per cent. The consideration for sale involved in Ext. A-2 is Rs. 48,000 and that means the centage value is Rs. 8,000.

It must be recalled that Exts. A-1 and A-2 were executed in the year 1985 and hence they were pre-notification sale deeds. Exts. A-1 and A-2 are registration copies of assignment deeds issued by the Sub Registrar u/s 57 of the Registration Act, 1908. They are authorised copies and hence admissible for the purpose of proving the contents of original documents, in view of Sub-section (5) of the said section. The contents of the documents may be proved either by primary or documentary evidence. However, Section 64 of the Evidence Act provides that generally documents must be proved by primary evidence. But the secondary evidence may be given of the existence, condition or contents of documents in the case when the original is a document of which a certified copy is permitted by any law in force to be given in evidence. This is what is provided u/s 65(f) of the Evidence Act. Exts. A-1 and A-2 registered copies of sale deeds are admissible in evidence in view of Section 65(f) of the Evidence Act read with Section 57(5) of the Registration Act.

Section 51A of the Land Acquisition Act is as follows:

51A. 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 u/s 57 of that Act, may be accepted as evidence of the transaction recorded in such document.

The above provision permits the Courts to accept as evidence the transaction recorded in the certified copy of the document. The Supreme Court in State of Bihar Vs. Madheshwar Prasad, observed "under Section 51A of the Act, the certified copy of the sale deed is admissible as evidence to get over the difficulties of the owner of the document would not produce the original title deeds''''. When the registered documents are admitted in evidence it cannot be insisted that the parties to those documents should be examined to prove the transaction in spite of the admissibility of the documents in view of Section 65(7) of the Evidence Act read with Section 57(5) of the Registration Act. At the same time when the parties to the suit dispute genuineness and truth of the contents of such documents it may be a case for examination of the parties to the documents or other persons connected therewith, if the marking of documents is objected for that reason.

Ex s. A-1 and A-2 sale deeds were marked through the claimant who has been examined as A.W. 1. The Counsel for the claimant pointed out that the marking of the documents was not objected by the Government Pleader in the Court below. No such objection appears to have been raised while marking the documents. Under Order XIII Rule 1 CPC the parties or their Pleaders shall produce at or before the settlement of issues all the documentary evidence in their possession or power on which they intend to rely. The Court after receiving the documents so produced, there shall be endorsed on every document which has been admitted in evidence in the suit as required under Rule 4. When documents are so marked as exhibits without objection of a particular party, that party cannot raise the objection that the said document has not been admitted in evidence. In Bhagat Ram v. Khetu Ram AIR 1929 P.C. 110 the Privy Council did not think it necessary to consider whether the document was admissible under the evidence law of the country when no objection was taken to the admissibility of a document. The Supreme Court in Javer Chand and Others Vs. Pukhraj Surana, observed: "Once the Court rightly or wrongly decides to admit the document in evidence so far as the parties are concerned the matter is closed."

What remains to be considered is whether the compensation granted by the Court below is excessive as contended by the Counsel for the Appellant or whether it is just and reasonable in the circumstances of the case. Section 23(1) of the Land Acquisition Act mandates that while determining the amount of compensation to be awarded for land acquired the Court shall take into consideration first the market value of the land at the date of the publication of the notification u/s 4(1). In this context it may be recalled that the Supreme Court has restated the law in this regard in Union of India v. Mangatu Ram and Ors. (1998) 6 S.C.C. 59 as thus:

It is settled legal position that it is the duty of the Court to sit in the armchair of a willing and prudent purchaser and seek answer to the question whether he would purchase the lands offered for sale with the existing features, at the same market value proposed by the Court. It is also settled law that though determination involves some guess-work, it must have reasonable basis and feats of imagination should be eschewed. It is the statutory duty of the Court to award reasonable and adequate compensation.

(Italics supplied)

The basic document relied on by the Land Acquisition Officer in this case is document No. 3111/88 executed on 6th August 1988. The extent of land involved in this document is 5.88 cents comprised in survey number 33/2 of Kylamadom desom for a consideration of Rs. 17,300. It has come out in evidence that this land is situated 500 metres away from Pantheerankavu bazar. The case of the claimant is that the land covered by the said document was originally a wet land and later it was filled up. The Commissioner has reported that this land is no way comparable with the acquired land in question. In that situation the Court below did not place any reliance on the said document. We do not see any reason to have a diffierent conclusion on this point.

Now let us turn to Exts. A-1 and A-2 pre-notification sale deeds produced by the claimant. At the outset it may be noticed that the Appellant has never alleged that the contents of these documents are not genuine or untrue. Therefore there is no question of examination of the vendor or vendee of the sale deeds Exts. A-1 and A-2. The lands involved in these two sale deeds are situated 300 metres away from the acquired land. The lands are in the very same village. The land value for one cent of land involved in Exts. A-1 and A-2 would come to Rs. 5,000 and Rs. 8,000 respectively. As observed earlier the sale involved in Exts. A-1 and A-2 took place in the year 1985, that is to say, five years prior to the notification. The average rate of sale value of these two sale deeds would come to Rs. 6,500 per cent. That means during the year 1985, a willing purchaser had offered the land value at this rate. Therefore, we are of the view that a prudent willing purchaser will not hesitate to purchase this garden land in the year 1991 at the rate of Rs. 7,500 per cent, considering the increase in the land value in those years. The Court below has fixed the land value in this case after evaluating the entire evidence, oral and documentary. We accordingly hold that the land value fixed by the Court below is just and reasonable. In the result, we confirm the impugned judgment and Decree and dismiss the appeal, L.A.A. No. 1655 of 1998.

As pointed out above, in the connected appeal L.A.A. No. 1113 of 1998, the judgment in L.A.R. No. 99 of 1994 has been relied on. Since the appeal arising from L.A.R. No. 99/94 has already been dismissed, L.A.A. No. 1113 of 1998 is also liable to be dismissed. In the result, both the appeals are dismissed.