IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO L.A.A.S.NO. 575 OF 2095 Between: The State of Andhra Pradesh through Land Acquisition Officer, and Special Deputy Collector, Unit-I, SingoorProject, Sangareddy ..... Appellant/Referring Officer AND Narasagonda S/o Balgonda .....RESPONDENT JUDGMENT:- (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) The Special Deputy Collector and Land Acquisition Officer, Unit-I, Signoor Project, Sangareddy, has filed this appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) aggrieved by the judgment and decree in O.P.No.432 of 1983 dated 12.5.1988 on the file of the learned Additional District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy. 2. Brief facts of the case are that an extent of Ac.2-09 guntas in various survey numbers situated at Siroor village was acquired for Singoor Project vide notification published in the Gazettee, dated 2.10.1982 issued under Section 4(1) of the Act. The possession of the land was taken on 30.9.1982. The Land Acquisition Officer after following the procedure prescribed under law, awarded compensation @ Rs.4,900/- per acre. The respondent/claimant received the compensation amount under protest and asked for making the reference under Section 18 of the Act and the Award has been accordingly referred and taken on file by the learned Additional District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy in O.P.Nos.439, 441, 442, 443 and 432 of 1983. The learned Additional District Judge upon appreciation of both the oral and documentary evidence available on record, fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.8,000/- per acre. Hence, this appeal. 3. In order to establish his claim, the respondent/claimant examined PWs 1 and 2 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.10 and on behalf of referring Officer, RW1 was examined and he got marked Exs.B.1 to B.3. 4. The learned Additional District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.8,000/- per acre taking into consideration the evidence of PW.2 Shabbirmiya, who has purchased the land under sale deed Ex.A.1 for a sale consideration of Rs.16,500/- about eight years back and also taking into consideration O.P.No.101 of 1983, wherein the compensation for Siroor lands was awarded at Rs.10,000/- per acre for dry lands and for single crop wet lands at Rs.13,000/- per acre. The learned Additional District Judge also relied on Ex.B.3 certified copy of order in O.P.No.373 of 1983 and batch, wherein the consideration of land shows less than 12 annas bhagana. He also held that the claimants are entitled for solatium at 30% per annum and interest was also awarded at 9% per annum from the date of taking possession namely 30.9.1982 for one year and thereafter @ 15% per annum till the date of realization. 5. We have heard the learned Government Pleader and also the learned counsel for the respondent/claimant. 6. The learned Government Pleader contended that the judgment and decree of the reference Court is unjust and the reference Court erroneously relied on Ex.B.3 sale deed for enhancing the compensation. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/claimant has drawn our attention to the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Cement Corporation of India Limited v Purya and others[1], wherein the Supreme Court considered the scope of Section 51-A of the Land Acquisition Act. The relevant portions at paragraphs 22,29,30 and 31 read as under: 22. ”In the ordinary course a deed of sale is the evidence of a transaction by reason whereof for a consideration mentioned therein the title and interest in an immovable property specified therein is transferred by the vendor to the vendee. Genuineness of such transaction may be in question. In a given situation the quantum of consideration or the adequacy thereof may also fall for adjudication. The courts, more often than not, are called upon to consider the nature of the transaction. Whenever a transaction evidenced by a sale deed is required to be brought on record, the execution thereof has to be proved in accordance with law. For proving such transaction, the original sale deed is required to be brought on record by way of primary evidence. Only when primary evidence is not available, a certified copy of the sale deed can be taken on record. Such certified copies evidencing any transaction are admissible in evidence, if the conditions precedent therefor in terms of Section 75 of the Indian Evidence Act are fulfilled. The transaction evidenced by the sale deed must be proved in accordance with law. 29. In V.Narasaiah case this Court correctly understood the said scope and object of insertion of Section 51-A in the LA Act when it held thus: (SCC P. 535 para 13) “It was in the wake of the aforesaid practical difficulties that the new Section 51-A was introduced in the L.A Act. When the Section says that certified copy of a registered document ‘may be accepted as evidence of the transaction recorded in such document’ it enables the court to treat what is recorded in the document, in respect of the transactions referred to therein, as evidence”. 30. While coming to the above conclusion in Narasaiah case, this Court found support from similar provisions in the other statutes like Section 293 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which enables the court to use report of a government scientific expert as evidence in any enquiry, trial or proceeding under the said Code, even without examining any person as a witness in a court for that purpose. Notice was also taken of Section 13(5) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act pertaining to the report of a Public Analyst which says that any document purporting to be a report signed by a Public Analyst may be used as evidence of the fact stated therein in any proceeding under the said Act. In Narasaiah case this Court (at SCC p.536, para 15) also relied on a judgment of the Constitution Bench of this Court in Mangaldas Raghavji Ruparel v State of Maharashtra which held thus: That the sub-section clearly makes the contents of the report of Public Analyst admissible in evidence and the prosecution cannot fail solely on the ground that the Public Analyst had not been examined in the case, but what value is to be attached to such report must necessarily be for the court to consider and decide”. 31. Thus, the reasoning of this Court in Narasaiah case that Section 51-A enables the party producing the certified copy of a sale transaction to rely on the contents of the document without having to examine the vendee or the vendor of that document, is the correct position in law. This finding in Narasaiah case is also supported by the decision of this Court in the case of Mangaldas Raghavji Ruparel.” 8. We have perused the judgment relied on by the counsel appearing for the claimant. In Cement Corporation of India Limited v. Purya and others (supra-1), the Supreme Court relied on its earlier judgment in Narasaiah case (SCC P. 536, P-15) gave a reasoning that Section 51-A enables the party producing the certified copy of a sale transaction to rely on the contents of the document without having to examine the vendee or the vendor of that document, is the correct position in law. 9. In view of the above finding and in the circumstances of the case, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the reference Court under Section 18 of the Act and the reference Court has rightly enhanced the compensation at Rs.8,000/- per acre. We see no merits in the appeal. 10. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J _________________​______ NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J 27th October, 2009. KA ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. 2 CD copies [1] (2004) 8 Supreme Court Cases 270