NANISETTI PANDURANGA VITTAL Vs. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR Y R P UNIT YELESWARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these appeals arise out of the judgments of the learned Subordinate Judge, Peddapuram dt. 2-3-87 A.S. Nos. 1213, 1221, 1222 and 1223 of 1987 have been preferrred by the claimants against the judgments dt. 2-3-87 passed by the Subordinate Judge in O.P.Nos. 98/85, 97/85, 99/85 and 115/85 respectively fixing the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 7,000/- per acre while the Land Acquisition Officer awarded the market value at Rs. 2,000/- per acre. In all the other appeals, the learned Subordinate Judge, confirmed the awards by the Land Acquisition Officer.

(2.) In the above appeals, the claimants have relied upon certified copies or cyclostyle copies of the sale deeds and certified copies of judgments in similar other matters in support of their claim for grant of enhanced compensation. But on a perusal of the material available on record it is clear that none of the persons connected with the documents has been examined to prove the originals of certified copies of the sale deeds. The burden is on the claimants to prove the documents relied upon by them by examining the vendee or vendor under those documents or some other person connected therewith. Xerox copies of . sale deeds or cyclostyled copies cannot be marked as exhibits. It is true that under Section 51-A of the Land Aquisition Act certified copies of the documents registered under the Registration Act may be accepted as evidence of the transaction recorded in such document. But it must be remembered that the contents of that document have to be proved by examining one of the persons connected thereto. The Supreme Court has also took the same view in Mehta Ravindrarai Ajitrai vs. State of Gujarat. The view expressed by the Supreme Court in the above judgment is also to the effect that the contents of the document have to be proved by examining one of the persons connected with the document The same view has been expressed by the Supreme Court in Periyar and Pareekanni Rubbers Limited vs. State of Kerala. In all the above appeals the documents were marked without examining any one of the persons connected thereto. It may also be incidentally stated here that the learned Subordinate Judge has granted compensation at the rate of Rs. 7,000/- per acre in some cases and in other cases he simply confirmed the awards passed by the Land Acquisition Officer. All the lands are situate in one and the same village Ramanayyapeta and they are all acquired for Y.R. Project. In these circumstances it is not desirable to confirm the order of the learned Subordinate Judge which is based on certified copies of documents which are not duly proved by examining any one of the persons connected with the said documents. We feel that an opportunity must be given to the claimants to examine the persons connected with the documents.

(3.) We, therefore, set aside the judgments of the learned subordinate Judge, under appeal, and remand the matters to the lower Tribunal (Subordinate Judge, Peddapuram) for giving an opportunity to both parties to adduce evidence in proof or disproof, as the case may be, of the documents filed by both the parties and to dispose of the same afresh. As the matters are of the year 1985, we direct the lower Courtto dispose of the O.Ps. within six months from thedate of receipt of this order. The Court fee paid on the memorandum of appeals shall be refunded to the appellants.