1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD (1) FIRST APPEAL NO.628 OF 2005 IN L.A.R. NO. 535 OF 2001 1. The State of Maharashtra, through Special Land Acquisition Officer, Upper Tapi Project, Hatnoor, Jalgaon. 2. The Executive Engineer, Waghur Project, Jalgaon. ...APPELLANTS ( Ori.Resps.) VERSUS Atmaram Tapiram Patil, Major, Occ: Agri., R/o. Shingayat, Tal. Jamner, District Jalgaon. ...RESPONDENT (Ori.Claimant) WITH (2) FIRST APPEAL NO.629 OF 2005 IN L.A.R. NO. 533 OF 2001 1. The State of Maharashtra, through Special Land Acquisition Officer, Upper Tapi Project, Hatnoor, Jalgaon. 2. The Executive Engineer, Waghur Project, Jalgaon. ...APPELLANTS ( Ori.Resps.) VERSUS Tulshiram Tapiram Patil, Major, Occ: Agri., R/o. Shingayat, Tal. Jamner, District Jalgaon. ...RESPONDENT (Ori.Claimant) 2 WITH (3) FIRST APPEAL NO.630 OF 2005 IN L.A.R. NO. 539 OF 2001 1. The State of Maharashtra, through Special Land Acquisition Officer, Upper Tapi Project, Hatnoor, Jalgaon. 2. The Executive Engineer, Waghur Project, Jalgaon. ...APPELLANTS ( Ori.Resps.) VERSUS Kusumbai w/o Yashwant Patil, Major, Occ: Agri., R/o. Shingayat, Tal. Jamner, District Jalgaon. ...RESPONDENT (Ori.Claimant) WITH (4) FIRST APPEAL NO.631 OF 2005 IN L.A.R. NO. 540 OF 2001 1. The State of Maharashtra, through Special Land Acquisition Officer, Upper Tapi Project, Hatnoor, Jalgaon. 2. The Executive Engineer, Waghur Project, Jalgaon. ...APPELLANTS ( Ori.Resps.) VERSUS Narmadabai w/o Bhaskar Surwade, Major, Occ: Agri., R/o. Shingayat, Tal. Jamner, District Jalgaon. ...RESPONDENT (Ori.Claimant) 3 WITH (5) FIRST APPEAL NO.632 OF 2005 IN L.A.R. NO. 541 OF 2001 1. The State of Maharashtra, through Special Land Acquisition Officer, Upper Tapi Project, Hatnoor, Jalgaon. 2. The Executive Engineer, Waghur Project, Jalgaon. ...APPELLANTS ( Ori.Resps.) VERSUS Tukaram Dashrath Patil, Major, Occ: Agri., R/o. Shingayat, Tal. Jamner, District Jalgaon. ...RESPONDENT (Ori.Claimant) WITH (6) FIRST APPEAL NO.633 OF 2005 IN L.A.R. NO. 534 OF 2001 1. The State of Maharashtra, through Special Land Acquisition Officer, Upper Tapi Project, Hatnoor, Jalgaon. 2. The Executive Engineer, Waghur Project, Jalgaon. ...APPELLANTS ( Ori.Resps.) VERSUS 1. Dashrath Chavdas Dhangar. 2. Prabhakar Chavdas Dhangar. 3. Shriram Chavdas Dhangar. 4. Dnyaneshwar Chavdas Dhangar. All farmers and major, R/o. Shingayat, Tal. Jamner, District Jalgaon. ...RESPONDENTS (Ori.Claimants) 4 WITH (7) FIRST APPEAL NO.634 OF 2005 IN L.A.R. NO. 543 OF 2001 1. The State of Maharashtra, through Special Land Acquisition Officer, Upper Tapi Project, Hatnoor, Jalgaon. 2. The Executive Engineer, Waghur Project, Jalgaon. ...APPELLANTS ( Ori.Resps.) VERSUS Yashwant Kadu Patil, Major, Occ: Agri., R/o. Shingayat, Tal. Jamner, District Jalgaon. ...RESPONDENT (Ori.Claimant) WITH (8) FIRST APPEAL NO.635 OF 2005 IN L.A.R. NO. 531 OF 2001 1. The State of Maharashtra, through Special Land Acquisition Officer, Upper Tapi Project, Hatnoor, Jalgaon. 2. The Executive Engineer, Waghur Project, Jalgaon. ...APPELLANTS ( Ori.Resps.) VERSUS 1. Dashrath Chavdas Dhangar. 2. Shriram Chavdas Dhangar. 3. Dnyaneshwar Chavdas Dhangar. 5 4. Prabhakar Chavdas Dhangar. All Major, Occ: Agri., R/o. Shingayat, Tal. Jamner, District Jalgaon. ...RESPONDENTS (Ori.Claimants) WITH (9) FIRST APPEAL NO.636 OF 2005 IN L.A.R. NO. 542 OF 2001 1. The State of Maharashtra, through Special Land Acquisition Officer, Upper Tapi Project, Hatnoor, Jalgaon. 2. The Executive Engineer, Waghur Project, Jalgaon. ...APPELLANTS ( Ori.Resps.) VERSUS Ramdas Dayaram Mahajan, Major, Occ: Agri., R/o. Jamner, Tq. Jamner, District Jalgaon. ...RESPONDENT (Ori.Claimant) WITH (10) FIRST APPEAL NO.637 OF 2005 IN L.A.R. NO. 532 OF 2001 1. The State of Maharashtra, through Special Land Acquisition Officer, Upper Tapi Project, Hatnoor, Jalgaon. 2. The Executive Engineer, Waghur Project, Jalgaon. ...APPELLANTS ( Ori.Resps.) VERSUS 6 Sitaram Tapiram Patil, Major, Occ: Agri., R/o. Shingayat, Tal. Jamner, District Jalgaon. ...RESPONDENT (Ori.Claimant) WITH (11) FIRST APPEAL NO.1357 OF 2005 IN L.A.R. NO. 1448 OF 2005 (Old L.A.R. No. 262 OF 2002) 1. The State of Maharashtra, (Notice be served on Collector, Jalgaon. 2. Executive Engineer, Waghur Project, Jalgaon. 3. Tapi Irrigation Development Corporation, through its Executive Director, Jalgaon. ...APPELLANTS ( Ori.Resps.) VERSUS Shri. Eknath Sukdeo Dhekale, Age: Major, Occ: Agriculturist, R/o. Khadgaon, Tal. Jamner, District Jalgaon. ...RESPONDENT (Ori.Claimant) WITH (12) FIRST APPEAL NO.1358 OF 2005 IN L.A.R. NO. 1422 OF 2005 (Old L.A.R.No.258 OF 2002) 1. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jalgaon. 7 2. Executive Engineer, Waghur Project, Jalgaon. 3. Tapi Irrigation Development Corporation, through its Executive Director, Jalgaon. ...APPELLANTS ( Ori.Resps.) VERSUS Shri. Raghunath Eknath Sonar, since deceased his legal heir Smt. Kamalbai Raghunath Sonar, Age: Major, Occ: Agriculturist, R/o. Khadgaon, Tal. Jamner, District Jalgaon. ...RESPONDENT (Ori.Claimant) WITH (13) FIRST APPEAL NO.1360 OF 2005 IN L.A.R. NO. 1444 OF 2005 (Old L.A.R. No. 283 OF 2002) 1. The State of Maharashtra, (Notice be served on Collector, Jalgaon. 2. Executive Engineer, Waghur Project, Jalgaon. 3. Tapi Irrigation Development Corporation, through its Executive Director, Jalgaon. ...APPELLANTS ( Ori.Resps.) VERSUS Shri. Bhagwat Sukdeo Dhekale, Age: Major, Occ: Agriculturist, R/o. Khadgaon, Tal. Jamner, District Jalgaon. ...RESPONDENT (Ori.Claimant) 8 WITH (14) FIRST APPEAL NO.1365 OF 2005 IN L.A.R. NO. 1434 OF 2005 (Old L.A.R. No. 263 OF 2002) 1. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jalgaon. 2. Executive Engineer, Waghur Project, Jalgaon. 3. Tapi Irrigation Development Corporation, through its Executive Director, Jalgaon. ...APPELLANTS ( Ori.Resps.) VERSUS Shri. Govinda Sukdeo Dhekale, Age Major, Occ: Agriculturist, R/o. Khadgaon, Tal. Jamner, District Jalgaon. ...RESPONDENTS (Ori.Claimant) WITH (15) FIRST APPEAL NO.1369 OF 2005 IN L.A.R. NO. 1445 OF 2005 (Old L.A.R. No. 276 OF 2002) 1. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jalgaon, J.T.P.H.1. 2. Executive Engineer, Waghur Project, Jalgaon. 3. Tapi Irrigation Development Corporation, through its Executive Director, Jalgaon. ...APPELLANTS ( Ori.Resps.) 9 VERSUS Shri.Raghunath Bhagwan Chinchole, since deceased his legal heirs : 1. Nirmalabai Raghunath Chinchole, 2. Shri. Satish Raghunath Chinchole, 3. Shri. Jitendra Raghunath Chinchole, 4. Sau. Sheelabai Ramesh Patil, 5. Sau. Chhaya Kisanrao Patil, All Major, Occ: Agriculturist, R/o. Khadgaon, Tal. Jamner, District Jalgaon. ...RESPONDENTS (Ori.Claimants) ... Shri. S.D. Kaldate, A.G.P. for the appellants. Shri. A.B. Kale, Advocate for respondents - original claimants in F.A. Nos. 628/2005 to 637/2005. Shri. V.D. Gunale, Advocate for respondents - original claimants in F.A. Nos. 1357, 1358, 1360, 1365 & 1369 of 2005. ... CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND K.K. TATED, JJ. RESERVED ON : 05/10/2010 PRONOUNCED ON : 12/10/2010 JUDGMENT : (PER K.K. TATED, J.) 1. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents - original claimants state that all these appeals are covered by previous judgments of this Court. Therefore, same can be 10 disposed of on those terms. They further submit that the land acquired in these appeals are for the same project. Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was also issued during the same period. The Reference Court relied on same sale instances. The learned A.G.P. appearing on behalf of the appellants - State, states that these facts are matters of record and they are not disputed and therefore, these appeals may be taken up for final hearing. Hence, these appeals are taken up for final hearing, out of turn, by consent of the parties. 2. All these First Appeals can be disposed of by common judgment as the same are arising from common judgment and award passed by the Additional District Judge, Jalgaon on 24-01-2005 and common judgment and award dated 27-04-2005 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalgaon, in Land Acquisition References. Few facts of the matter are as under : 11 3. The above mentioned First Appeals are preferred by the State of Maharashtra against the common judgment and award dated 24-01-2005 passed by the Additional District Judge, Jalgaon in Land Acquisition References. The Reference Court awarded enhanced compensation in respect of the acquired land @ Rs.4,00,000/- Per Hector for irrigated land, @ Rs.2,00,000/- Per Hector for dry crop land and @ Rs.1,00,000/- for Potkharaba land. 4. The Special Land Acquisition Officer issued notification dated 21-08-1997 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act ( For short, "Said Act" ) for acquiring the respondents' - original claimants' land from village Shingayat, Taluka Jamner District Jalgaon for Waghur Project. Notification under Section 6 of the said Act was published on 26-02-1998. Thereafter, the S.L.A.O. issued notices dated 04-05-1998 to the respondents - original claimants under Section 9(3) of the said Act, calling their objections. 12 5. After following due process of law, the S.L.A.O. declared Award dated 18-08-2000 and awarded compensation in respect of the land as follows : Group No. Per Hector Rate Rs. Ps. 2 25,875/- 3 32,200/- 4 34,500/- 5 39,100/- 6 43,700/- 7 43,700/- 8 43,700/- Potkharaba land 1,500/- 6. The Acquiring Body took possession of the acquired land on 17-11-2000 and on the same day, the respondents - original claimants received compensation in respect of the acquired land. 7. Being aggrieved by the said award passed by the S.L.A.O., the respondents - original claimants preferred References under Section 18 of the said Act and claimed enhanced compensation in respect of the acquired lands @ Rs.4,00,000/- per 13 Hector for irrigated land, @ Rs.2,00,000/- per Hector for jirayat land and Rs.1,00,000/- for potkharaba land. 8. In the References, the Reference Court awarded enhanced compensation in respect of the acquired land @ Rs.4,00,000/- per Hector for irrigated land, Rs.2,00,000/- per Hector for jirayat land, and Rs.1,00,000/- per Hector for potkharaba land. 9. Being aggrieved by the common judgment and award dated 24-01-2005 passed by the Reference Court, the S.L.A.O. and Acquiring Body - Executive Enginer, Waghur Project, Jalgaon preferred the above mentioned first appeals on the ground that the Reference Court erred in coming to the conclusion that the respondents - original claimants are entitled to the enhanced compensation in respect of the acquired land. 10. In another group of First Appeal Nos. 14 1358 of 2005, 1357 of 2005, 1360 of 2005, 1365 of 2005, and 1369 of 2005, the S.L.A.O. issued Notification dated 09-10-1997 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act for acquiring respondents - original claimants' land from village Khadgaon, Taluka Jamner District Jalgaon for Waghur Project. After following due process of land, the S.L.A.O. passed Award dated 20-11-2000 and awarded compensation as under : Group No. Per Hector Rate Rs. Ps. 1 25,155/- 2 27,000/- 3 32,200/- 4 37,000/- 5 42,000/- 6 47,000/- The claimants received their compensation on 02-08-2001. 11. Being aggrieved by the Award passed by the S.L.A.O., the respondents - original claimants preferred References under Section 18 of the Land 15 Acquisition Act. In these References, respondents - original claimants claimed compensation in respect of the jirayat land @ Rs.2,00,000/- to Rs. 3,00,000/- Per Hector. These References decided by the Reference Court by common judgment and award dated 27-04-2005 and awarded enhanced compensation in respect of the acquired land @ Rs. 1,80,000/- Per Hector for jirayat land and @ Rs. 90,000/- Per Hector for Potkharaba land. At the time of awarding enhanced compensation, the Reference Court relied on sale deed dated 13-08-1997 in respect of 40 Ares of land from village Hingane bearing Gat No. 94/1. The sale instance is between Ashok Narayan Patil and Eknath Narayan Choudhari for consideration of Rs. 1,02,000/-. Another sale instance dated 16-01-1996 is in respect of land admeasuring 50 Ares of land from land Gat No. 114/A from village Shingayat for consideration of Rs.1,25,000/-. 12. Being aggrieved by the common judgment and award dated 27-04-2005 passed by the Reference 16 Court, the S.L.A.O. and acquiring body - Executive Engineer, Waghur Project, Jalgaon and Tapi Irrigation Development Corporation through its Executive Director, Jalgaon preferred these First Appeals on the ground that the Reference Court erred in coming to the conclusion that the respondents - original claimants are entitled to the enhanced compensation in respect of the acquired land. 13. The learned A.G.P. appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that the Reference Court failed to consider that the respondents - original claimants failed to produce cogent evidence on record to show that they are entitled to enhanced compensation in respect of acquired land. 14. He further submits that the S.L.A.O. has rightly awarded compensation keeping in view the location, fertility and utility of the acquired land. However, the Reference Court without considering the potentiality, utility and location 17 of the land, enhanced compensation, which is exorbitant and cannot be fetched in that vicinity. He further submits that the Reference Court wrongly relied on the sale deed dated 13-08-1997 executed between Eknath Narayan Choudhari and Ashok Narayan Patil in respect of 50 Ares of land from Gat No. 94/1 for Rs.1,02,000/- and the sale deed dated 23-05-1996 executed between Prashant Ramnath Sartale and Shivaji Bhimrao Patil for 40 Ares of land from Gat No.446/A/3/1 for Rs. 95,000/- for coming to the conclusion that the respondents - original claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation in respect of the acquired land. 15. The learned A.G.P. further submits that the S.L.A.O. has considered the situation of the land under acquisition and also has taken into consideration other factors while assessing the market price of the land on the date of notification under Section 4 of the said Act. 18 16. He further submits that the S.L.A.O. has classified the land on the basis of quality of soil, assessment and other factors. Therefore, there is no question of enhancing the compensation payable to the respondents - original claimants in respect of the acquired land. He submits that the Reference Court ought to have dismissed the References preferred by the original claimants under Section 18 of the said Act, as the respondents failed to produce any cogent evidence on record. 17. The learned A.G.P. appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the original claimants failed to examine either vendor or vendee to prove the sale deeds produced by them. He submits that they produced only certified copies of the sale deeds which is not admissible in law. He submits that for determination of market value, the sale deeds of comparable lands have to be proved by examining vendor or vendee or scribe. Section 51A of the Land Acquisition Act does not dispense with 19 proof of comparable sale deeds. In support of this contention, he relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Special Deputy Collector and another etc., vs. Kurra Sambasiva Rao and others etc., reported in A.I.R. 1997 S.C. 2625. Para-8 of the said judgment reads thus : "8. The best evidence of the value of property are the sale transaction in respect of the acquired land to which the claimant himself is a party; the time at which the property comes to be sold; the purpose for which it is sold; nature of the consideration; and the manner in which the transaction came to be brought out. They are all relevant factors. In the absence of such a sale deed relating to the acquired land, the sale transactions relating to the neighbouring lands in the vicinity of the acquired land. In that case, the features required to be present are; it must be within a reasonable time of the date of the notification; it must be a bonafide 20 transaction; it should be a sale of land similar to the land acquired or land adjacent to the land acquired; and it should possess similar advantageous features. These are relevant features to be taken into consideration to prove the market value of the acquired land as on the date of the notification published under Section 4(1) of the Act. This would be established by examining either the vendor or the vendee. If it is proved that they are not available, the scribe of the document may also be examined in that behalf. Section 51-A of the Act only dispenses with the production of the original sale deed and directs to receive certified copy for the reason that parties to the sale transaction would be reluctant to part with the original sale deed since acquisition proceedings would take longtime before award of the compensation attains finality and in the meanwhile the owner of the sale deed is precluded from using the same for other purposes vis-a-vis this land. The marking of the 21 certified copy is perse is not admissible in evidence unless it is duly proved and the witnesses, viz., the vendor or the vendee, are examined. This principle has been repeated in a catena of subsequent decisions of this Court." . He also relied on the judgment in the matter of G. Narayan Rao vs Land Acquisition Officer, reported in A.I.R. 1996 S.C. 3469. 18. The learned A.G.P. further submits that the market value of the acquired land cannot be determined on the basis of previous judgments of the same project. He submits that in each case, the claimants have to produce separate evidence to justify for the purpose of enhancement of compensation. 19. On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents - original claimants in support of the common judgment and 22 award passed by the Reference Court, submits that the Reference Court has rightly considered the sale deeds dated 13-08-1997 and 23-05-1996 for enhancing the compensation in respect of the acquired land. 20. He submits that though the Reference Court has recorded in Para-14 of the judgment in First Appeal No. 628 of 2005 and connected matters that the respondents - original claimants claimed lesser compensation than the actual calculation works out on the basis of evidence on record, and therefore, the respondents' claim can be accepted without any hesitation. 21. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the original claimants submits that the appellants State of Maharashtra and Acquiring Body preferred several First Appeals against the common judgment and award passed by the Reference Court from the same Waghur Project. Those First Appeals are finally decided by this Court. 23 22. First Appeal No.1184 of 2007 and First Appeal No.1304 of 2007 are decided by this Court by judgment dated 19-03-2009 and dismissed the appeals preferred by the State of Maharashtra. In these two appeals, the S.L.A.O. issued notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act dated 21-08-1997 and 22-11-1997 for acquiring the land for Waghur Project from the villages Khadgaon and Shingayat, Taluka Jamner District Jalgaon. In those First Appeals, the claimants had preferred References under Section 18 of the said Act for enhanced compensation in respect of the acquired land. In those References, the Reference Court awarded compensation @ Rs.1,25,000/- Per Hector, for dry crop land (jirayat land), and Rs.62,500/- Per Hector, for waste land (Potkharaba). 23. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the original claimants also relied on the judgment and award dated 05-01-2009 in First 24 Appeal No.662 of 2003 and other connected matters. In those appeals, the S.L.A.O. issued notification dated 21-08-1997 under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act for acquiring original claimants' land from village Shingayat, Taluka Jamner District Jalgaon for Waghur Project. The S.L.A.O. passed Award dated 18-08-2000. Being aggrieved by the said Award, the original claimants had preferred References under Section 18 of the said Act. 24. In those References, the Reference Court awarded compensation in respect of bagayat land @ Rs.4,00,000/- per Hector, Rs.2,00,000/- per Hector for jirayat land and Rs.1,00,000/- per Hector for Potkharaba land. The Reference Court relied on the sale instance dated 16-01-1996 in respect of 50 Ares of land from village Shingayat, Taluka Jamner, District Jamner, for consideration of Rs. 1,25,000/- and another sale instance dated 13-08-1997 for 40 Ares from village Hingane, for consideration of Rs.1,02,000/-. 25 25. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents - original claimants also relied on common judgment dated 05-01-2009 passed by this Court in First Appeal No. 729 of 2003 and other connected matters. In those First Appeals, the S.L.A.O. issued notification dated 21-08-1997 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act for acquiring the land from village Shingayat, for Waghur Project. The S.L.A.O. passed Award dated 18-08-2000. Being aggrieved by the said Award, the original claimants had preferred References under Section 18 of the said Act. 26. In those References, the Reference Court, by its judgment and award dated 18-12-2009 awarded enhanced compensation in respect of the acquired land @ Rs.4,00,000/- per Hector for irrigated land,Rs.2,00,000/- per Hector for jirayat land and Rs.1,00,000/- per Hector for Potkharaba land. The Reference Court relied on the sale instance dated 16-01-1996 in respect of 50 Ares of land from village Shingayat for consideration of Rs. 26 1,25,000/- and another sale instance dated 13-08-1997 for 40 Ares of land from village Hingane, for consideration of Rs.1,02,000/-. On the basis of these High Court judgments, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the original claimants, submits that these appeals preferred by the State of Maharashtra and Acquiring Body are liable to be dismissed with costs. 27. He further submits that in all these First Appeals which were already decided by this Court, the lands were acquired for the same Project and the Reference Court relied on same sale instances for awarding enhanced compensation in respect of the acquired land. 28. He further submits that in the present group of First Appeals, the Reference Court relied on the sale instances dated 13-08-1997 and 23-05-1996 for coming to the conclusion that the respondents - original claimants are entitled to 27 the enhanced compensation in respect of the acquired land. Against this evidence, the appellants have not adduced cogent evidence to show that whatever compensation awarded by the S.L.A.O. was not as per prevailing market rate on the date of issuing Notification under Section 4 of the said Act. 29. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondents-original claimants vehemently argued that in view of Section 51-A of the Land Acquisition Act, the Reference Court can rely on the certified copies of the sale deeds for determining the market value of the acquired land, and it is not necessary to prove the certified copies of the sale deeds, by examining either vendor or vendee. He relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of State of Haryana vs. Ram Singh reported in A.I.R. 2001 S.C. 2532. In this case, the Apex Court held that the certified copies are admissible in evidence without examining the parties to the document. Para-5 and 28 6 of the said judgment reads as under : "5. Counsel for the State was right when he submitted that the High Court erred in rejecting Exhibits R/2 and R/3 as inadmissible only on the ground that the parties to the documents had not been examined by the State. It is not the law that a certified copy of a registered agreement for sale is inadmissible in evidence unless the parties to the document are examined to prove it. That would be contrary to what Sections 77 read with Sections 74(2) and 76 of the Evidence Act, 1872 and more specifically Section 51A of the Land Acquisition Act provide. As far as the provisions of the Evidence Act are concerned, a certified copy of the registered sale deed is admissible in evidence and does not need to be proved by calling a witness. ( See Ramappa V. Bojappa AIR 1963 SC 1633, 1637)." "6. Section 51A of the Act is to the same effect. In Land Acquisition Officer & Mandal Revenue Officer V. 29 V. Narasaiah (2001 AIR SCW 867 : AIR 2001 SC 1117) (supra), it was held that by virtue of Section 51-A, a certified copy of a document registered under the Registration Act, 1908 including a copy under Section 57 of the Act may be accepted as evidence of the transaction recorded in such documents. It is open to the Court to accept the certified copy as reliable evidence and without examining parties to the documents. This does not however preclude the Court from rejecting the transaction itself as being malafide or sham provided such a challenge is laid before the Court." 30. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents - original claimants relied on the judgment in the matter of Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, Nagpur vs. Shaikh Khatinabi wd/o Abdul Gaffar Shaikh, and others reported in 2008(1) Mh.L.J. 813. In that case, Bombay High Court held that for determining the market value of the acquired land, 30 the Reference Court can rely on the certified copies of the documents registered under the