JUDGMENT
J.P. Singh, J.
1. This is an appeal against judgment and decree dated 16.05.2002 of learned Additional District Judge, Ramban, whereby he has rejected the reference by deciding issues Nos. 2 & 3 against the appellant.
2. Sh. O. P. Thakur, leaned Counsel appearing for appellant, has raised two points in support of his appeal viz., (1) Learned Additional District Judge, Ramban, has erred in non suiting the petitioner on the plea that she had failed to prove her case regarding market value of the land as it existed on the day when notification under Section 4 of the State Land Acquisition Act, was issued; and (2) Learned Additional District Judge, Ramban, has further erred in refusing to relay on the certified copies of the sale deeds which were produced before him.
3. Sh. A. H. Qazi, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for respondents, initially tried to justify the award but later when confronted with the latest judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case Cement Corporation of India. Ltd. etc. etc. v. Purya and Ors. etc. etc. reported as 2004 (7) Supreme 711, and Section 23 of the State Land Acquisition Act, learned Counsel accepted the position of law, which does not permit determination of market value of land on the date of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the State Land Acquisition Act.
4. I have considered the submissions of Sh. O. P. Thakur and have gone through Section 23 of the State Land Acquisition Act.
Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case Cement Corporation of India Ltd. etc. etc. v. Purya and Ors. etc. etc. reported as 2004 (7) Supreme 711, too has been perused by me.
5. It appears that learned Additional District Judge, Ramban, has proceeded to decide the case without looking at Section 23 clause First. Had the learned District Judge cared to look at Section 23, he would not have landed himself in error in proceeding to refuse adjudication of the claim of the appellant, who had based her case of market value of the land as it existed on the date of publication of declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. Sh. Thakur is right in submitting that the approach adopted by Addl. District Judge is erroneous.
6. The second point urged by Sh. Thakur is covered by the judgment of hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case ‘Cement Corporation of India Ltd. etc. etc. v, Purya and Ors. etc. etc.’ reported as 2004 (7) Supreme 711, where Their Lordships have referred to Section 51 of the Central Land Acquisition Act, which on amendment of the Land Acquisition Act permitted reliance on the certified copy of the sale transactions for relying on the contents of the document. It has been observed by their Lordships:
22. In the ordinary course a deed of sale is the evidence of a transaction by reason whereof for a consideration mentioned therein the title and interest in an immovable property specified therein is transferred by the vendor to the vendee. Genuineness of such transaction may be in question. In a given situation the quantum of consideration or the adequacy thereof may also fall for adjudication. The Courts, more often than not, are called upon to consider the nature of the transaction. Whenever a transaction evidenced by a sale deed is required to be brought on record, the execution thereof has to be proved in accordance with law. For proving such transaction, the original sale deed is required to be brought on record by way of primary evidence. Only when primary evidence is not available, a certified copy of the sale deed can be taken on record. Such certified copies evidencing any transaction are admissible in evidence, if the conditions precedent therefore in terms of Section 75 of the Indian Evidence Act are fulfilled. The transaction evidenced by the sale deed must be proved in accordance with law.
7. State Land Acquisition Act too stands amended and Section 49-A stands inserted in the State Land Acquisition Act by Act XX of 1988. Amended section reads, thus:
49-A. Acceptance of certified copy as evidence. In any proceeding under this Act, a certified copy of a document registered under Registration Act, Samvat 1977, including a copy given under Section 57 of that Act, may be accepted as evidence of the transaction recorded in such document.
8. In view of the extracted provisions of Section 49-A of the State Land Acquisition Act and the judgment of hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case Cement Corporation of India Ltd. etc. etc. v. Purya and Ors. etc. etc. reported as 2004 (7) Supreme 711, I am of the view that the learned Additional District Judge, Ramban, has erred in refusing to take into consideration the certified copies of the documents relied upon by the appellant.
9. The findings recorded by learned Additional District Judge on both these issues, is, thus, unwarranted and against the provisions of State Land Acquisition Act, Judgment impugned in this appeal, is, thus, set aside and case remanded to learned Additional District Judge, Ramban, for deciding the case afresh in accordance with the law,
10. This appeal is, accordingly, allowed.
Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the trial court on 28.11.2005.