Law:

Section:

SALEEM AKHTAR, J: --The appellant by the leave of the Court has challenged the judgment of the High Court whereby its Constitution petition filed against the order of the Tribunal constituted under Martial Law Regulation 57 (Amendment) Ordinance, 1989, was dismissed and the transaction of lease of land claimed by it was not confirmed.

2.  The dispute relates to land bearing Survey No. 54 measuring 12 acres and 4 Ghuntas situated in Deh Surjani, Taluka and District Karachi. It is an evacuee trust land and was managed and administered by the Evacuee Trust Property Board. The land was first leased out to some other party particulars of which have not been mentioned in the appeal. However, the same was taken over under Martial Law Regulation 57 and was disposed of under para. 6 of the Regulation. Before disposal respondent No. 1 advertised in daily Jang Karachi dated 8-2-1986 and interested parties were asked to submit their offers for 99 years' lease. The appellant offered a bid at the rate of Rs. 1,62,500.00 per acre and submitted a pay order of Rs. 39,325.00, equivalent to 2 per cent. of the total consideration of the land. The appellant's offer was highest amongst about 10 other participants and therefore it seems to have been accepted and the appellant was called upon through letter dated 27-2-1986 to deposit 25 per cent. of the total consideration. The appellant complied with the request and deposited a pay order for Rs. 4,53,253.00 in favour of respondent No.1. The matter was not finalised and remained the subject-matter of further negotiations and meetings. Ultimately, it was decided on 29-9-1988 that the appellant shall pay 10 per cent. over and above the total consideration which was accepted by it. Respondent No.l did not grant lease and it seems that the matter remained without a final decision till Martial Law Regulation 57 (Amendment) Ordinance, 1989, was promulgated on 27-5-1989. As required by para. 6-A of Martial Law Regulation 57 as amended, the appellant filed application for confirmation of transaction which was registered as Application No.34 of 1989. The Tribunal after hearing the parties dismissed the Application mainly on the ground that the land was not disposed of through open auction as required by para. 6 of Martial Law Regulation 57, but by inviting bids and further that the disposal was not in small lots. The appellant filed Constitution Petition challenging the order of the Tribunal, but it was dismissed by the impugned judgment.