SK. SIDIQUE Vs. GOPI SAHOO AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short question which arises for consideration in this revision is whether the report of the Consolidation Amin submitted in course of a consolidation proceeding is a public document within the ambit of Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act, or not. Such a question arose when the Defendants in course of the suit wanted to exhibit the said report and the Plaintiff raised objection to the admissibility of the document in question. The learned Munsif having overruled the objection on a conclusion that the document in question is a public document, the Plaintiff has filed this revision.

(2.) MR . Das, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, contends that such a document does not come within the ambit of Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act and the learned Munsif committed an error in coming to a contrary conclusion. In elaborating his argument, Mr. Das contends that the Amin cannot be held to be a public officer and therefore, the report submitted by him is not a public document. To test the correctness of the aforesaid submission, it is necessary to examine the provisions of the Orissa Consideration of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) as well as the Rules framed there under to find out whether there is any duty cast on the Amin to make such a report in course of a consolidation proceeding or not.