Remanded

Shri.Gurudev Ganba Sinai Gaitonde v. Spl.Land Acquisition Officer (N) and Anr.

Bombay HC8 Oct 2010FA/28/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that certified copies of registered sale deeds are admissible without examining parties. It ruled that land abutting a road retains value even if part is unbuildable due to setbacks. The appeal allowing the reference was set aside, and the case was remanded to the Reference Court to reconsider compensation.

What did the court decide?

Impugned judgment and award set aside; matter remanded to the Reference Court for fresh consideration in light of admissibility of certified copy evidence and building potential of land abutting a roa

Shri.Gurudev Ganba Sinai Gaitonde Vs Spl.Land Acquisition… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

:1:

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

¶3

FIRST APPEAL NO. 28 OF 2001

¶4

Shri Gurudev Ganba Sinai Gaitonde, married, of full age, landlord, residing at Tonka, Caranzalem, Ilhas Goa. ... Appellant

¶5

V e r s u s

¶6

Special Land Acquisition Officer (N), Mapusa Goa.

¶7

Executive Engineer, Works Division VIII, Irrigation Department, Mulgao ( P.O.), Assonora, Goa.

¶8

... Respondents

¶9

Mr. R. G. Ramani, Advocate for the Appellant.

¶10

Mr. M. Salkar, Additional Government Advocate for respondents.

¶11

CORAM : D. G. KARNIK, J.

¶12

DATED : 8 th OCTOBER, 2010.

¶13

ORAL JUDGMENT :

¶14

This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 9^th October, 2000 passed by the learned District Judge, Panaji, rendered in Land Acquisition Case No. 63/1994. In view of the final order that is proposed to be passed, it is not necessary to refer to all the facts in detail. A brief reference to the facts and the points involved would suffice.

¶15

:2:

¶16

By a notification dated 5^th March, 1991 published in the two news papers dated 11^th March, 1991, and published in the Official Gazette dated 4^th July, 1991 and published at public places on 16^th August, 1991, the respondents – State proposed to acquire the large tracks of lands in village Latambarcem and Village Advalpal in Bicholim Taluka, for the purpose of construction of left bank main canal of Tillari Irrigation project. Out of the land belonging to the appellant, a portion admeasuring an area of 2400 square metres out of survey No.6/2 (part) and a portion admeasuring 3225 square metres out of survey no. 7 (part) of village Advalpal was proposed to be acquired. According to the appellant, he is a co-owner of survey No.6/2 and survey no. 7 and he has 50% share therein. On 3^rd June, 1992 the Land Acquisition Officer passed an award offering to pay a compensation at the rate of Rs.10/- per square metre for the acquired land of the appellant. Aggrieved by the amount of compensation, the appellant moved an application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and the matter was referred by the Collector for a decision to the District Court, Panaji. The reference was numbered as Land Acquisition Case No. 63/1994. After considering the evidence adduced by the parties, the learned District Judge ( hereinafter referred to as the Reference Court ) partly allowed the reference. The Reference Court did not enhance the market value of the acquired land but awarded some compensation for the wall which was existing in the acquired land. Aggrieved by the decision of the Reference Court, the appellant is in appeal.

¶17

:3:

¶18

Before the Reference Court, the appellant examined himself and produced the certified copies of three sale deeds dated 3^rd March, 1989, 15^th June, 1987 and 14^th December, 1987 at Exhibit AW1/C, Exhibit AW1/D and Exhibit AW1/E respectively. The appellant also examined the purchaser of the sale deed at Exhibit AW1/D as a witness (AW4). He examined two valuers, one for the purpose of market value of the acquired land and one for the purpose of valuation of the trees standing in the acquired land. The respondents – State did not examine any witness. After considering the evidence adduced on record, the Reference Court rejected the claim of the appellant for enhancement of compensation for the acquired land but partly allowed the claim for the compensation of wall existing in the land.

¶19

Out of three sale deeds produced by the appellant, the Reference Court rejected the sale deed at Exhibit AW1/D on the ground that it was not a sale of comparable land. As regards the certified copies of two sale deeds produced by the appellant at Exhibits AW1/C and AW1/E, the Reference Court rejected the same on the ground that any one of the parties of the sale was not examined as a witness and, therefore, the sale deeds were not proved. The Reference Court in this regard observed thus :

¶20

“I am not considering the two other sale deeds which are produced by the appellant namely which are at Exhibit AW1/C and AW1/E as these sale deeds were not duly proved as required by the Apex Court i.e. by examining the purchaser or vendor or the attesting

¶21

:4:

¶22

witness”.

¶23

Mr. Ramani, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the Reference Court erred in rejecting the certified copy of the sale deed on the ground that the vendor or purchaser or the attesting witness were not examined. He submitted that the certified copies of the sale deeds are the public documents and as such were admissible in evidence under Section 77 of the Evidence Act. He further submitted that in any event after the amendment of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by the Amendment Act 68 of 1984, the certified copies of the sale deeds were admissible in evidence under Section 51A of the Land Acquisition Act. In my view the submission is meritorious and needs to be accepted for the reasons indicated below.

¶24

Section 74 of the Evidence Act states which documents are public documents. Sub-section 2 of Section 74 of the Evidence Act says that the public records kept ( in any State ) of private documents are public documents. The sale deeds are private documents. However a sale deed of the property valued at upwards of Rs.100/- is required to be registered under Registration Act, 1908. The records of the sale deed so registered is maintained by the State in accordance with the Registration Act, 1908 and Rules framed there under. Any person is entitled to a certified copy of a sale deed which is required to be furnished by the Registration Authorities on payment of necessary charges. The records kept by the Registering Officer are open for inspection by the public. Hence a sale deed being a record kept by the State of private document is a public document under Section 74 of the

¶25

:5:

¶26

Evidence Act. Section 77 of the Evidence Act says that certified copies of a public document may be produced in proof of the contents of the public documents or parts of the public documents of which they purport to be copies. In my view a certified copy of a sale deed is admissible in evidence under Section 77 of the Evidence Act and the certified copy can be produced in proof of the contents of its contents. I am fortified in my view by a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana V/s Ram Singh, reported in AIR 2001 SC 2532 wherein the Supreme Court observed thus :-

¶27

“ 5 . Counsel for the State was right when he submitted that the High Court erred in rejecting Exhibits R/2 and R/3 as inadmissible only on the ground that the parties to the documents had not been examined by the State. It is not the law that a certified copy of a registered agreement for sale is inadmissible in evidence unless the parties to the document are examined to prove it. That would be contrary to what Section 77 read with Sections 74(2) and 76 of the Evidence Act, 1872 and more specifically Section 51A of the Land Acquisition Act provide. As far as the provisions of the Evidence Act are concerned, a certified copy of the registered sale deed is admissible in evidence and does not need to be proved by calling a witness. ( See Ramappa V.s Bojappa, AIR 1963 SC 1633, 1637).”

¶28

:6:

¶29

The doubt, if any, which persisted as to whether the certified copy of a sale deed is admissible without calling the vendor or purchaser or the attesting witness to prove its contents has been set to rest by an amendment of the Land Acquisition Act by introduction of Section 51A therein. Section 51A was introduced with effect from 24^th September, 1984 by the Central Act of 1964. Section 51A reads thus :

¶30

“Section 51A s pecifically provides that- in any proceeding under this Act, a certified copy of a document registered under the Registration Act, 1908 including a copy given under Section 57 of the Registration Act, may be accepted as evidence of the transaction recorded in such document.”

¶31

In my view, the use of words “may be accepted” does not make any difference to the facts of the case. The expression “ the certified copy may be accepted” means that the certified copy shall ordinarily be accepted unless there are good reasons for not accepting it. Except where it is proved by adducing evidence that the document produced was fraudulent and executed for collateral purpose or there exists any other good reason to hold otherwise a certified copy of the sale deed would have to be accepted as an evidence of its contents. Neither the Land Acquisition Officer nor the Reference Court would be justified in rejecting the document on the ground that they have discretion not to accept it by reason of using of words “may be accepted”. The words “may be accepted” would ordinarily mean the document shall be accepted in

¶32

:7:

¶33

evidence unless there is a good and valid reason for not accepting the document. The words “may be accepted” do not confer unfettered discretion in the Court to reject the certified copy in evidence without good reason. In this connection a reference may be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in case of State of Haryana Vs Ram Singh (supra ). In para 6 the Supreme Court has observed thus :-

¶34

“6 . Section 51A of the Act is to the same effect. In Land Acquisition Officer and Mandal Revenue Officer V.s V. Narasaiah, (2001 AIR SCW 867 : AIR 2001 SC 1117 ) (supra), it was held that by virtue of Section 51-A, a certified copy of a document registered under the Registration Act, 1908 including a copy under Section 57 of the Act may be accepted as evidence of the transaction recorded in such documents. It is open to the Court to accept the certified copy as reliable evidence and without examining parties to the documents. This does not however preclude the Court from rejecting the transaction itself as being mala fide or sham provided such a challenge is laid before the Court.”

¶35

In my view, therefore, the Reference Court was not right in rejecting the sale deed at Exhibits AW1/C and AW1/E only on the ground that

¶36

:8:

¶37

the appellant had not examined the purchaser or vendor or the attesting witness. It may be noted that a sale deed at Exhibit AW1/D was rejected on the ground that it was not comparable sale instance. The sale deeds at Exhibits AW1/C and AW1/E were rejected only on the ground that they were not duly proved and not on the ground that they were not comparable sale instances.

¶38

It appears that the survey No.6/2 and survey No. 7 are large pieces of lands and only parts of two survey numbers were acquired. A public road made up of tar known as Assonora-Mencurem passes through the two survey numbers. A portion of the land which is a part thereof is acquired appears to be abutting the two said roads. The learned Reference Court has held that the acquired land had no building potential because the acquired portion abutted the road. It held that the appellant has to keep a portion as set back from the road. In this connection, the Reference Court has observed as follows :

¶39

“It is further to be noted that there is absolutely no evidence brought on record by the applicant giving the dimensions of either of the suit plots. Now it is the applicant's case himself that the Assonora-Mencurem tar road which is a public road is passing through the two survey numbers i.e. this road is adjoining both the suit plots. In that view, therefore, the width of the portion acquired would be very much relevant since here the observations by the Hon'ble

¶40

:9:

¶41

High Court that no construction is permissible adjoining the Highway and certain distance is required to be kept from the boundary line of the Highway which is known as the set back, are directly attracted. Though it is correct that the Assonora-Mencurem road may not be a Highway but it is a public road for which also set back for construction purpose is necessary.”

¶42

In my view, this approach is also erroneous. When a person is an owner of a large piece of land abutting the road, while constructing a building, he undoubtedly require to keep a certain set back from the main road i.e. to say he is required to keep a certain distance from the road open and no building construction is permissible on such open portion. But does not mean that open land abutting road has no market value or very little market value on the ground that the portion is unbuildable being a part of the set back. In cases of large piece of land the area under the set back would also be available while computing FSI ( Floor Space Index ) available for a building construction. Usually a certain percentage of a land can only be built upon and remaining land is to be kept open. The buildable area is to be determined on the basis of the total area of the land including the area falling under the set back area and without excluding the area under the set back. The building potential of a piece of land depends upon the total area including the area of the set back. I am fortified in my view by a decision of the Supreme Court

¶43

:10:

¶44

rendered in the case of State of Goa and another V/s Gopal Baburao Gaudo and others, (2009)10 SCC 686 wherein the Supreme Court observed thus :

¶45

“ 5. The contention that a land adjoining the

¶46

highway should be treated as having no development potential ( and therefore as land without much value except as ordinary agricultural land ), while considering the lands to its rear which are farther away from the road, or other adjoining lands of the same extent, but having more depth ( so as to extend beyond the 40 m margin ) as having potential for development, is illogical and cannot be accepted.

¶47

6 . We may demonstrate the absurdity of such a contention with reference to an illustration. Let us take the example of a residential plot of land measuring 60' X 100'. Let us assume that the municipal bye-laws require a front (roadside) set back of 20' for construction of houses in a plot of that size. Therefore, the owner would leave a twenty feet wide front strip in the said plot free of any construction while putting up the construction in the plot. Obviously, he cannot thereafter construct in that front strip. Let us further assume that the front strip is acquired for

¶48

:11:

¶49

road widening. Can the acquiring authority deny compensation to that strip on the ground that the said 20' strip acquired for road widening could not in any event be used for any construction purpose and, therefore, was not of any value ? Obviously not.”

¶50

For these reasons, I am of the view that the learned Reference Court also erred in not enhancing the compensation on the ground that the acquired land did not have any building potential because it was abutting the road.

¶51

It is undoubtedly true that the appellant had not adduced appropriate evidence before the Reference Court as to the total area of the land in survey No. 6/2 and survey no.7. It was therefore not possible for the Reference Court to determine whether a portion of the land acquired was only a small part of survey no.6/2 and survey no.7 and, therefore, the remaining land including the land abutting the road had a building potential. In this regard Civil application No. 61/2000 was made by the appellant for production of additional evidence. By the said application, the appellant had sought to produce a map to prove the total area and also to show what portion was acquired. By an order dated 5^th April, 2001 the application has been allowed and the appellant has been allowed to produce the additional evidence. Thus there is an additional evidence available in this Court. In view of the fact that two sale deeds admissible in evidence have not been referred to by the

¶52

:12:

¶53

Reference Court and, therefore, the remand is necessary, it would be appropriate instead of considering the additional evidence adduced in this Court, the same also be allowed to be produced before the Reference Court after the remand.

¶54

For these reasons, I am of the view that the impugned order required to be set aside and the matter is required to be remanded back to the Reference Court. I accordingly pass the following order :

¶55

O R D E R

¶56

The impugned judgment and award is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Reference Court with a direction to re-consider the matter in the light of the observations made herein. In view of the fact that the appellant is granted permission to produce the additional evidence, if any, including the evidence which he sought to produce before this Court by means of civil application, in the Reference Court. In view of the fact that the appellant is being granted permission to adduce additional evidence, the respondent – State is also granted permission to adduce evidence in rebuttal and additional evidence in the matter. The Reference Court shall decide the matter afresh in the light of the observations made herein.

¶57

D. G. KARNIK, J.

¶58

at*

Shri.Gurudev Ganba Sinai Gaitonde v. Spl.Land Acquisition Officer (N) and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri.Gurudev Ganba Sinai Gaitonde v. Spl.Land Acquisition Officer (N) and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Goa,through L.A.O. Vs Mr.Janardana U.N. Counto(Dec) and Ors.through Lrs

Shailendra v.Naik and Ors. Vs Spl.Land Acquisition Officer

Puttu Venkatesh P.Alvenkar Vs the Dy.Collector Margao and Anr.

Spl.Land Acquisition Officer (S.Goa) and Anr. Vs Narendra v.Raikar and Anr.

Narendra Vaikunt Raikar and Anr. Vs Special Land Acquisition Officer(S.Goa) and Ors.

Lilia Lopes(Dec.)through Lr'S and Ors. Vs Land Acquisition Officer and Anr.