' MUHAMMAD HALEEM, J.--The petitioner seeks special leave to appeal against the order of the High Court of Sind, Karachi, dated 18th of March 1980, by which Civil Miscellaneous Application No, 683 of 1980 was dismissed.
' The sole trustee of Pinjrapur Trust, named Bawa Manobhagir, by a registered deed dated 21st of November, 1977, conveyed leasehold rights in Survey Nos. 16, 24, 25 and 27 in Deh Okeywari, Tapo Songal, Taluka and District Karachi, measuring 21 acres, in favour of the petitioner on payment of Rs, 55,000. Survey Nos. 16, 24 and 35 had already been acquired by the K. D. A. For which compensation was duly paid. As for Survey No, 27, it was also listed for acquisition in the K. D. A.
Scheme No, 22 and compensation for it had also been paid on ad hoc basis. However, the petitioner's case was that in spite of the proposed lease having been advertised before the conveyance was made, no objections were received and he, thereupon, completed the transaction. On 30th of June, 1979, a case was registered against Syed Mukhtar Ali Shah, Sub- Registrar, Karachi, under section 5(2) of Act 11 of 1947 on the ground of registering illegal sales of land. As the investigation disclosed the involvement of the petitioner, he was arrested on 19th of February, 1980, on charges under section 409/411, P. P. C. Read with section 5(2) of Act H of 1947 and M. L.
0. 59/M. L. R.
14. It appears that out of the above land, Survey Nos. 24, 25 and 27 were conveyed to the Works Co- operative Housing Society Ltd., by the K. D. A. And on coming to know of the lease deed, the Works Co-operative Housing Society filed a suit bearing No, 414 of 1978 in the High Court of Sind at Karachi on its original side for a declaration that the lease deed in favour of the petitioner was void and for perpetual injunction to restrain him from entering into the contracts of sale or constructing any building thereon or interfering with its possesssion. The petitioner also filed a Writ Petition bearing No, 356 of 1980 in the High Court of Sind for a declaration that his arrest and detention was illegal and for injunction to restrain his trial by the Summary Military Court. He also filed an application for bail which was rejected on 10th of March 1980, on the ground that it was misconceived in the wake of the trial before the Summary Military Court. The second bail application was also rejected on 18th of March 1980, as no reason appeared to the High Court to modify its earlier order. The petitioner had also sent an application for bail by post to the Summary Military Court in March 1980.
According to his counsel nothing was heard as to its result. The challan appears to have been submitted before the Summarily Court on 28th of February, 1980.
The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks bail on the ground that the offence is exclusively triable by a Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, and, therefore, the cognizance taken by the Summary Military Court was illegal. This contention is the sheet-anchor of his prayer in the constitutional petition which is yet to be decided on merits by the High Court. It would not be proper at this stage to go into it for, even otherwise, the obtaining of leasehold rights in the land, for a paltry sum of Rs, 55,000 as occupancy charges appears to, be high suspicious and moreso when the lessor had no right even to convey the land for which he had received compensation from the K. D. A. Hence on facts we 'do not find it a fit case to interfere with the order of the High Court. However, we would observe that the High Court should expedite the hearing of the constitutional petition.
' Accordingly, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed.