IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE NINETH [9TH] DAY OF MARCH, TWO THOUSAND AND TEN Present: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY & THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY A.S.No.1656 of 1998 & A.S.No.2250 of 1998 AS No.1656 of1998: Between: A.P. Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Ltd., Parishrama Bhavan, Hyderabad … Appellant And: P. Venkaiah & others … Respondents AS No.2250 of1998: Between: A.P. Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Ltd., Parishrama Bhavan, Hyderabad … Appellant And: Y.Darshan & others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY & THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY A.S.No.1656 of 1998 & A.S.No.2250 of 1998 COMMON JUDGMENT: [per AGR, J] These two appeals by the requisition Department i.e., the A.P. Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited [APIIC], under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, is directed against the common order dated 19.04.1997 passed by the I Additional Subordinate Judge, Ranga Reddy district in OP Nos.107 and 108 of 1988, answering the reference in favour of the claimants. 2. An extent of Ac.1.21 guntas in Sy.No.53 covered by the subject matter in OP No.107 of 1988 and an extent of 36 guntas in Sy.No.102, situated at Ferozguda village of Balanagar Mandal, covered by subject matter in OP No.108 of 1988, were acquired for establishing BHEL R & D Unit by issuing a draft notification dated 23.06.1977. The Land Acquisition Officer by award dated 15.11.1978 fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.5/- per square yard, basing upon the sales statistics collected by him preceding three years from the date of notification. The claimants, who were not satisfied with the fixation of the market value, claiming Rs.40/- per square yard before the LAO, sought reference of the matter to the civil Court for due determination of the compensation. On reference being made in the above OPs, respective claim statements were filed claiming compensation at Rs.40/- per square yard. 3. To prove the market value of the acquired land, one of the claimants was examined as PW.1 and marked Exs.A.1 and A.2. According to PW.1, under Ex.A.1 registered sale deed dated 24.11.1976 an extent of 250 square yards of land was sold at the rate of Rs.21/- per square yard and under Ex.A.2 dated 26.08.1975, an extent of 250 square yards of land was sold at Rs.20/- per square yard, but PW.1 was not cross-examined on the above aspect. The lower Court after taking into consideration of the award, where the Land Acquisition Officer referred the sales effected in the years 1974, 1975 and 1976 on the yardage basis and that some lands were sold at Rs.20,000/- per acre and where some extent of land was sold at Rs.20/- per square yard and in Sy.No.8, the land was sold at the rate of Rs.20/- and Rs.21/- per square yard, arrived at the minimum rate of Rs.21/- per square yard for the lands, in 1976. Further, as per the award, the land situated in interior area was sold at Rs.30,000/- per acre in 1971, which is opposite the acquired land and the same was discarded by the Land Acquisition Officer on the ground that it is not within three years preceding to the notification and after taking into consideration Exs.A.1 and A.2, fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.21/- per square yard, since they are small extents of 250 square yards and after deducting 1/3rd towards lay out losses, fixed the market value at Rs.14/- per square yard. 4. Questioning the same, the present appeals have been preferred contending that Award No.13 dated 15.11.1978 of the Land Acquisition Officer was not taken into consideration by the reference Court. Further, nobody connected to the documents under Exs.A.1 and A.2 have been examined before the lower Court, to prove the same and therefore, the lower Court ought not to have relied on the consideration mentioned therein for fixation of the market value. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that when the Land Acquisition Officer gave cogent reasons in his award by discarding Exs.A.1 and A.2, the same was not taken into consideration by the Court below and in the absence of examining the vendee or vendor of Exs.A.1 and A.2, the consideration mentioned therein cannot form the basis for fixation of the market value. We do not see any merit in the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant. 6. It is now well settled that the award is only an offer made by the Land Acquisition Officer and the same cannot be treated in evidence, unless the person connected thereto is examined and filed necessary sales statistics to prove the market value arrived. In the present case, the Land Acquisition Officer neither examined himself nor marked award copy as exhibit. Further, under Section 51-A of the Act, the certified copy of a document registered under Registration Act, including a copy given under section 57 of the Act, can be accepted as evidence of the transaction recorded in such document. Explaining the reason behind the insertion of Section 51-A of the Act, the Apex Court in ‘Cement Corporation India vs. Purya & others[1]’ while approving the ratio laid down in ‘Land Acquisition Officer and Mandal Revenue Officer vs. Narsaiah’s[2]’ case held that under Section 51-A of the Act, if a presumption as to the genuineness of the contents of the document is permitted to be raised, the same can be relied upon only if the said presumption is not rebutted by other evidence. Once the documents are marked as exhibits, the Court can look into the same for assessing the market value of the acquired land. Since the lower Court, after accepting the evidence under Ex.A.1 as produced by PW.1 gave necessary deduction of 1/3rd towards lay out losses, fixed the market value at Rs.14/- per square yard for the acquired land, which even reflects the true market value on the date of issuance of the notification, we do not find any merit in these appeals and they are liable to be dismissed. 7. The appeals are accordingly are dismissed. No order as to costs. _________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J ___________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 09.03.2010 Lrkm/bss [1] 2004(8)SCC 270 [2] (2001)3SCC 530