- (1.) Mr Aman Hingorani, learned counsel for the appellant resumed his arguments at 11. 00 a. m. and continued till 11.20 a. m. Then, Mr Somvir Singh, learned counsel for the appellant made his submissions for 10 minutes. Then, Mr Vinay Kumar Garg, learned counsel for the State made his submissions from 11.30 a. m. to 11.45 a. m. Mr Aman Hingorani made his submissions in reply for 10 minutes. Thereafter, Mr Vinay Kumar Garg resumed his arguments and concluded at 12.30 p. m. After that, Mr Aman Hingorani made his submissions and concluded at 12.40 p. m. Delay condoned.
(2.) Substitution allowed. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the parties pointed out that there are conflicting decisions rendered by Benches of three learned Judges as to the admissibility of certified copies of sale deeds and treating them as evidence in the absence of examining vendor, vendee or any witness. The learned counsel also submitted that certified copies of the sale deeds produced in these cases have material bearing in determining the market value of the lands in question.
(3.) In Meharban v. State of U. P. a Bench of three learned Judges has stated thus: "73.Having regard to the respective contentions, the question that arises for consideration is whether the determination of the compensation by the Reference Court and the High Court is correct in law It is settled legal position that the Court, while determining the compensation must sit in the armchair of a willing and prudent vendor and put a question whether the market value sought to be determined would be capable of fetching that hypothetical price and should determine a just and adequate compensation for the land acquired. Since none connected with the sale deeds was examined, the sale deeds are inadmissible in evidence though certified copies marked under S. 51-A are available. So, all the sale deeds stand excluded. " (emphasis supplied);