' SHAHZAD AKBAR KHAN, J.--- Fateh Muhammad and six others residents of Village Shah Mansoor Tehsil and District Swabi have filed this appeal questioning the correctness of the judgment, dated 10-12-1996 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge/Land Acquisition Judge, Swabi, whereby the reference filed by the appellant under sections 18/30 of the Land Acquisition Act was dismissed.
2. The short facts of the case are that land measuring 2123 Kanals, 13 Marlas was acquired for the purpose of construction of Shah Mansoor Township. Notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was issued by the then Deputy Commissioner, Swabi vide his office Endst.
No,358-62/DK/HVC, dated 10-6-1989. Declaration under section 6 of the said Act was issued by the then Commissioner, Madan Division, Mardan vide his office Endst. No,5161-63/HVC, dated 7-10-1990.
The relevant award has been assigned its number as 728-31/ACS, dated 16-3-1991. The area acquired by the Land Acquisition Collector, Swabi was of two kinds i.e, Chahi and Maira land. The price of the Chahi land was determined by the Collector as Rs,37,352 per Kanal while that of Maira land was determined as Rs,13,553 per Kanal based on one yearly average.
3. 15% compulsory acquisition charges were also given to the landowners. The area of the appellants that was acquired was 25 Kanals bearing Khasra Nos.7920/1 to 3060 and 7921/3652.
4. Dissatisfied with the compensation amount, the appellants filed reference before the Senior Civil Judge/Land Acquisition Judge, Swabi. The reference was resisted by the respondents by filing reply thereto and the rival pleadings generated the following issues:--
(1) Whether the petitioners/objectors have got cause of action?
(2) Whether the objection petition is within time?
(3) Whether the market value of the suit-land assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector is wrong, if so what is the correct market value of the suit-land?
(4) Whether the objector was entitled to the enhancement of compensation as prayed for?
(5) Relief.
5. Both the parties adduced their respective evidence. However, the trial of the matter ended into dismissal of the reference petition.
6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has argued that the price determined for the land of the appellants by the Land Acquisition Collector and upheld by the Land Acquisition Judge is much less. He contended that the land can be used for the purpose of construction as the same is located near Shah Mansoor Village. He argued that the potential value of the land was not taken into consideration by the Land Acquisition Judge. While making reference to the testimony of P.W.2 he argued that other lands in the similar vicinity were sold for the higher price than that given to the appellants.##TE#
7. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondents has opposed this appeal and argued that the land of the appellants is of Maira kind and is located far-off the Shah Mansoor Village which does not have any source of water and even the electric supply is not available near the acquired land. He submitted that the price of the land of the appellants was fixed on the basis of one yearly average which is one of the mode recognized by law for determining the compensation under the Land Acquisition Act.
8. We have heard and considered the rival contentions of the parties in the light of the record. In support of their case the appellants produced Umar Dad Patwari Halqa as P.W.1 who produced one yearly average, five yearly average and Khasra Girdawari. Appellant No,1 was examined as P.W.2. In his statement he ventilated the grievance that the price of the land was fixed very low and made a prayer that the price be enhanced in accordance with the prayer made, in the reference application which was demanded as 60/70 thousand rupees per Kanal alongwith the 15% compulsory acquisition charges. P.W.2 stated that their property was acquired for the school playground measuring 9 Kanals, 7 Marlas for an amount of Rs,3,74,000. Photostat copies of the mutation and the cheque regarding the said transaction were placed on file. He also stated that his son Zahir Muhammad has sold land measuring 4 Kanals for a sum of Rs,1,00,000 to one Mati-ul- Haq. Similarly P.W.3 Muhammad Amin was examined who stated that his property was also acquired for the same purpose and that he has sold one Kanal of land for rupees one lac prior to the acquisition of the suit-land. No attested copy of any document is placed on the file by the appellants. The learned counsel for the appellants was at pains to give any justification for such omission. Neither the record of the bank was summoned nor any functionary thereof was produced as witness in order to prove the payment through above referred cheque. We feel that merely production of the photostat copies which is a secondary evidence in its nature would not be admissible in view of section 76 of the Qanun- e-Shahadat. The landowners are burdened with the duty to produce some party to the transaction on which they place reliance in order to pove its genuineness and bona fide. Although the Patwari Halqa was produced as a witness but no attested copy of the relevant mutation was produced through him. The land of the appellant was admittedly a Barani land and the compensation was determined on the basis of one yearly average. As per view of this Court in the case reported as PLD 1976 Pesh. 50 even the mere production of a mutation as evidence is not sufficient to prove the transaction. It was held therein that the landowners must produce some party to the transaction on which the landowners rely. We have examined the Aks Shajra Kishtwar Exh.P.W.1/4 which indicates that Khasra No,7920 is located at the remote end and is not situated on any road side. Similarly Khasra No,7921 is a long strip of land having a path to the very meagre front of this Khasra number. The evidence is also scanty on the point that there is either any electricity or source of water available in the acquired area. Such- like factors are considered to add to the potential value of the land which are obviously lacking here. Similarly P.W.2 though stated that he has sold his property measuring one Kanal for one lac rupees but he failed to produce the relevant mutation and in the cross-examination he has admitted that he has not brought the mutation which was attested for rupees one lac per Kanal.
In the circumstances we believe that the appellants have not been able to prove that their land was acquired for a lower price than the prevalent rate. In view of the foregoing circumstances we see no force in this appeal which is dismissed, with no order as to costs.