BHARAT SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment will dispose of R.F.A. Nos. 137 to 142 and 147 to 153 of 1971, which arise out of the same judgment of the Additional District Judge, Rohtak dated November 10, 1970.

(2.) BRIEFLY the facts of the case are that a notification dated January 2, 1969 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was issued regarding the land in dispute belonging to several owners. The land was needed for construction of District Jail, Rohtak. The Collector determined compensation of the land at the rate of Rs. 8,000 per acre for Barani land, Rs. 8,800 for Nehri land and Rs. 6,000 for Ghair Mumkan land. The owners filed objections against the award under Section 18 of the Act and prayed that the matter may be referred to the Civil Court for determination of the price. On the applications of the landowners 7 references were made to the Additional District Judge, Rohtak which were numbered as Claim. File Nos. 34/4 to 40/4. These were consolidated and disposed of by one judgment. The learned Additional District Judge enhanced the compensation for all types of land at the rate of Rs. 5.50 per square yard. Thirteen appeals have been filed against the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge, six by the land owners and seven by the State of Haryana. The former have been numbered as RF As 137 to 142 and the latter as RF As' 147 to 153, of 1971.

(3.) I have given a thoughtful consideration to the argument of the learned Counsel but regret my inability to accept it. Mutations are prepared by public servants in discharge of official duties, as they are enjoined to do so under Section 34 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act. The entries in the mutations are later on incorporated in the Jamabandis to which presumption of truth is attached under Section 44 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act. Section 35 of the Evidence Act says that an entry in any public or other official book, register, or record, stating a fact in issue or relevant fact, and made by a public servant in discharge of his official duty, is itself ajrelevant fact. It is well settled principle of law that mutations can be tendered into evidence and it is not necessary to prove them. Section 91 of the Evidence Act provides that when the terms of a contract, or of a grant, or of any other disposition of property, have been reduced to the form of document, and in all cases in which any matter is required by, law to be reduced to! the form of document, no evidence shall be given in proof of the terms of such contract, grant or other disposition of property, or of such matter, except the document itself, on secondary evidence of its contents in cases in which secondary evidence is admissible under its provisions. Section 65 of the Evidence Act deals with cases in which secondary evidence relating to documents may be given. It is the established canon of interpretation of statute that a general provision must yield to special provision provided for particular cases. Sections 91 and 65 of the Evidence Act are general provisions whereas Section 34 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act is a special provision. Therefore in case of conflict the provisions of Section 34 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act read with Section 35 of the Evidence Act, must prevail.