DEFENCE ESTATE OFFICER Vs. LILABEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This group of appeals has been filed for and on behalf of the acquiring body under S.54 of the Land Acquisition Act read with S.96, C.P.C., challenging the common judgment and awards passed by the Reference Court under S.18 of the said Act.

(2.) The pertinent facts, in brief, are as under : 2.1 The lands in question are situated in village Harni, District Baroda, on the outskirts of the city of Baroda, and were acquired for setting up a defence unit for the Air Force (Surface-to-Air Guided Weapons Complex). The relevant notification under S.4 was published on 25th September 1985, and possession was taken by the acquiring body on 28th May 1986. 2.2 After following the requisite procedure, the Land Acquisition Officer declared his award under S.11 of the said Act on 17th November 1986, whereby he offered Rs. 55,000.00 per hectare, Rs. 60,000.00 per hectare and Rs. 70,000.00 per hectare, depending upon his classification of the acquired lands in different categories. The claimants-land holders, not having accepted the awards, preferred their Reference under S.18 of the said Act, whereby they claimed a market value of Rs. 3.50 per square feet. The Reference Court, after recording evidence, determined the market value at Rs. 1,50,000.00 per hectare (Rs. 15/- per square meter) in respect of two specific survey numbers, viz., Survey No. 688 and 688/1/B, and at the rate of Rs. 1,40,000.00 per hectare (Rs. 14/- per square meter) for all the other survey numbers under acquisition. 2.3 It is this determination by the Reference Court under S.18 of the said Act, which is the subject-matter of the present appeals.

(3.) We shall first deal with the contentions of the respective parties as regards the determination of the maket value of the acquired lands. Learned Counsel for the appellant first contended that the Reference Court was in error in not relying upon Exhs. 127 to 132. These six Exhibits are sale deeds which are dated respectively, 14th February 1985, 13th February 1985, 5th June 1985, 5th June 1985, 4th November 1985 and 4th November 1985. In this context it was emphasized that the respective dates of the sale deeds are in a close proximity to the date of S.4 notification, viz., 25th September 1985. These sale deeds reflect a sale price respectively, of about Rs. 7,000.00 per acre, Rs. 6,000.00 per acre, Rs. 15,000.00 per acre, Rs. 15,000.00 per acre, Rs. 32,800.00 per acre and Rs. 32,800.00 per acre. 3.1 In this context, we may merely note the settled case law, well established since long, that mere production of sale deeds on record and mere exhibiting the same for the purpose of the record, does not and cannot establish the element of "free sale", which is the crucial test of determining whether the transaction reflected in the sale deed truly and in reality reflects a price mutually arrived at between the parties to the transaction on the basis of all factors and all considerations which the parties to the transaction would consider relevant. In other words, it is only when a party to the transaction deposes in Court, and is subjected to crossexamination, can the Court really arrive at the satisfaction that there were no other considerations which would detract from the principle of "free sale" and that there were no other considerations such as compelling reasons, or the existence of other reasons which would detract from the market value reflected in the sale deed one way or the other. Needless to say that this is a well established principle which does not require any extensive discussion of case law on the subject. However, to cite merely one instance, we refer to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Land Acquisition Officer v. Smt. Jasti Rohini , reported at JT 1995 (2) SC 339. In paragraph 7 of the said decision the Supreme Court had occasion to observe that a free sale between a willing vendor and a willing purchaser can only be established by examining either the vendor or the vendee, and that making of certified copies of sale deeds are not proof of either the contents or the circumstances in which it came to be executed. On the facts of the case, it is an admitted position that so far as these six sale deeds are concerned, neither the vendor nor the vendee has been examined. In these circumstances, it cannot possibly be suggested, as is sought to be urged by learned Counsel for the appellant, that these documents reflect the prevailing market value, free from all other considerations whatsoever. We are, therefore, unable to accept the contention raised on behalf of the appellants that these documents should have been made the basis of determination of the market value attributable to the lands under acquisition. 3.2 Learned Counsel for the appellants, in furtherance of his contention, in the context of these six sale deeds, also sought to rely upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of P. Ram Reddy v. Land Acquisition Officer, reported at 1995 (2) SCC 305. With particular reference to paragraph 19 of the said decision it was urged that certified copies of registered documents are and should be accepted as evidence of transactions recorded in such documents, and that S.57A is enacted to enable the parties in land acquisition cases to produce certified copies of documents to get over the difficulty of parties, in that, persons in possession of the original documents would not be ready to put them in Courts. However, we may note here that in the very same paragraph the Supreme Court has further gone on to state the well established law to the effect that the mere fact that the certified copy of the document is accepted as evidence of the transaction recorded in such document, does not dispense with the need for a party relying upon the certified copies of such documents produced in Court in examining witnesses connected with documents to establish their genuineness and the truth of their contents (emphasis supplied). Therefore, (the Supreme Court added further) the certified copies of registered documents, though accepted as evidence of transactions recorded in such documents, the Court is not bound to act upon the contents of those documents unless persons connected with such documents give evidence in Court as regards them and such evidence is accepted by the Court as true.