Case Background
The dispute arises from a title suit over possession of certain land described as Schedule-3 land of the plaint in Title Suit No. 05 of 2013, pending before the court of Munsif, Narkatiyaganj.
The respondents, as plaintiffs, filed the suit for recovery of possession. The present petitioners are defendants in that suit.
According to the stand of the defendants, a sale deed was executed on 19.07.1967 by one Usaman Mian in favour of Babulal Prasad for 2 Kattha 5 dhur of land. However, they say that in reality only 1 Kattha 2 dhur came into Babulal’s possession because the remaining land had already been acquired by the Public Works Department (PWD) in 1965 for construction of a road, which still exists.
To support this defence, the defendants earlier filed a true copy of a map of the acquired land, which the trial court marked as Exhibit-E. That map showed only the upper part, depicting the position of the plots proposed to be acquired.
Later, the defendants managed to obtain from the District Record Room a certified copy of the complete map relating to the land acquisition for Dhumnagar Maldahia Road in the then District of Champaran. This complete map also contained, in its lower part, the specific area of various plots that were actually acquired, including Survey Plot Nos. 14 and 14/A.
On 18.08.2023, the defendants moved an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 read with Sections 74 and 77 of the Indian Evidence Act, seeking to mark this certified copy of the complete map as an exhibit.
By order dated 16.01.2024, the learned Munsif, Narkatiyaganj, rejected this application. The trial court held that the document was not relevant to the case and further treated it as an attempt to exhibit the same document twice, as Exhibit-E had already been marked.
Aggrieved, the defendants approached the Patna High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in Civil Miscellaneous Jurisdiction No. 248 of 2024, challenging the trial court’s refusal to take the certified copy of the map on record.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The Patna High Court, through Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arun Kumar Jha, heard both sides and decided the petition at the admission stage itself.
The petitioners’ counsel argued that the trial court’s order was cryptic and unsustainable because it rejected an important piece of evidence without proper reasoning. The trial court simply stated that the map was not relevant and that the same document could not be exhibited twice.
The petitioners pointed out that the plaintiffs’ suit is for recovery of possession of Schedule-3 land, and the defendants’ main defence is that part of the land claimed by the plaintiffs had in fact been acquired by the government in 1965 for a public road.
They submitted that the earlier document marked as Exhibit-E was only a partial map. It showed the upper part, depicting the plots proposed to be acquired, but did not include the lower section where the specific area of each plot, including Plots 14 and 14/A, was mentioned.
The newly filed document, obtained from the District Record Room, was said to be the certified copy of the complete map showing both the map and the measurement details of different plots acquired. From this document, it could be seen, according to the petitioners, that 10 decimal from Plot No. 14 and 5 decimal from Plot No. 14/A had been acquired, which was central to their defence.
They argued that since these facts had already been pleaded in the written statement, there was a proper foundation for relying on this map. They also stressed that the map was a public document within the meaning of Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act, being a true copy of a record maintained by a government authority regarding land acquisition in 1965.
On this basis, they submitted that under Section 77 of the Evidence Act, this certified copy was admissible as secondary evidence to prove the contents of the original public document, and the trial court was legally wrong in rejecting their application.
On the other hand, the respondents’ counsel strongly opposed the petition. They supported the trial court’s view that the document was not admissible and argued that the same document had already been marked as Exhibit-E, so it could not be exhibited again.
The respondents’ counsel also questioned the relevance of the map. He argued that from the document itself it was not clear which exact portion was acquired from Plot Nos. 14 and 14/A.
He further relied on the report of the Pleader Commissioner, which allegedly showed that the defendants were in possession of excess land and that the land in question had not been acquired by the PWD. According to the Pleader Commissioner, it was the defendants who had encroached upon the land of the plaintiffs.
The respondents also submitted that the suit had been pending since 2013 and that the defendants were adopting delaying tactics. They requested that the High Court direct the trial court to dispose of the suit in a time-bound manner, even if it were to interfere with the impugned order.
After hearing both sides and perusing the record, the Patna High Court examined two main aspects: whether the new map was the same as Exhibit-E, and whether it was admissible and relevant evidence under the Evidence Act.
On the first point, the Court held that the trial court had clearly erred. The High Court found that Exhibit-E and the newly sought map were not the same document. Exhibit-E was only a part of the complete document, while the certified copy now placed on record contained the full map along with the detailed area of the acquired plots.
The Court noted that there was no dispute between the parties on this factual distinction. Therefore, treating the new map as an attempt to exhibit the same document twice was a mistake.
On the second point, concerning admissibility and relevance, the Court observed that the trial court had not given any reason at all for holding that the document was “not admissible”. It had recorded this conclusion without analysis, despite the clear pleadings in the written statement regarding prior acquisition of the suit land for a public road.
The High Court reasoned that once the defendants had specifically pleaded that part of the land had been acquired, any document showing details of that acquisition became relevant to the just decision of the case. The certified copy of the map, being a record of land acquired for Dhumnagar Maldahia Road in the erstwhile District of Champaran, clearly fell into this category.
Legally, the Court held that such a map, issued from the District Record Room, is a public document under Section 74(2) of the Indian Evidence Act. Section 77 of the Act expressly allows production of certified copies of public documents as secondary evidence to prove the contents of the original.
In view of these provisions, the High Court held that the trial court should not have rejected the petition for exhibiting the certified copy of the map on the ground of non-admissibility. The trial court had misapplied the law and failed to exercise its jurisdiction properly.
Consequently, the Patna High Court concluded that the impugned order dated 16.01.2024 could not be sustained.
The Court therefore set aside the trial court’s order and allowed the application dated 18.08.2023 filed by the defendants for exhibiting the certified copy of the complete map.
At the same time, responding to the grievance that the suit was pending since 2013, the High Court directed the trial court to expedite proceedings and to try to dispose of the title suit within six months from the date of receipt or production of a copy of the High Court’s order.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment matters for land dispute cases where parties rely on old government records, especially land acquisition documents and maps.
First, the Patna High Court has clarified that certified copies of maps kept in government record rooms are public documents. Courts must treat them as admissible secondary evidence under Sections 74 and 77 of the Evidence Act, if they are relevant to the dispute.
Second, the judgment shows that trial courts cannot reject such documents through short, unreasoned orders. When a party has pleaded facts about government acquisition, documents showing details of that acquisition must be carefully considered.
Third, the decision is important for villagers facing cases involving roads built long ago. It shows that old acquisition records and maps can still be used in court to prove that some land has already been taken for public purpose.
Finally, the High Court balanced the defendants’ right to lead proper evidence with the plaintiffs’ interest in speedy justice, by directing that the long-pending suit be decided within six months. This underlines that allowing relevant evidence need not mean endless delay.
Legal Issues and Answers
- Issue: Could the trial court refuse to exhibit a certified copy of a government land acquisition map by treating it as irrelevant and as a duplicate of an earlier exhibit?
Answer: No. The Patna High Court held that the new map was not the same as Exhibit-E, that it was a relevant public document relating to pleaded facts of acquisition, and that under Sections 74(2) and 77 of the Evidence Act the certified copy was admissible. The refusal by the trial court was therefore unsustainable. - Issue: Is a certified copy of a land acquisition map issued by the District Record Room a public document whose certified copy can be used as evidence?
Answer: Yes. The Court held that such a map is a public document under Section 74(2) of the Evidence Act, and Section 77 permits production of its certified copy as secondary evidence of the original’s contents. - Issue: What directions did the High Court give regarding the pace of the underlying title suit?
Answer: The Court directed the trial court to expedite the matter and try to dispose of the title suit within six months from the date of receipt or production of a copy of the High Court’s order.
Cases Cited by the Court
- No prior judicial decisions or case law have been cited or relied upon in the text of this judgment.
Case Details
Case Number: Civil Miscellaneous Jurisdiction No. 248 of 2024
Case Title: Ramashish Pandit and another v. Deepak Prasad and others
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arun Kumar Jha
Citation: 2024 (4) PLJR 121
Advocates:
- For the petitioners (defendants in the suit): Mr. Chandra Kant, Advocate; Mr. Navind Kumar, Advocate; Mr. Shashank Shekhar, Advocate
- For the respondents (plaintiffs in the suit): Mr. Pankaj Kumar Jha, Advocate; Mr. Umesh Kumar Gupta, Advocate
Nature of the case: Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an interlocutory order of the trial court in a pending title suit (rejection of an application under Section 151 CPC read with Sections 74 and 77 of the Evidence Act for exhibiting a certified copy of a land acquisition map).
Date of Patna High Court Judgment: 02.09.2024
Impugned Trial Court Order: Order dated 16.01.2024 passed by the learned Munsif, Narkatiyaganj in Title Suit No. 05 of 2013
Link to full judgment: Patna High Court Judgment in C. Misc. No. 248 of 2024
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar, you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
