ISLAMABAD, Nov 10: The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed a case challenging the acquisition of land for development of Bahria Golf City in the picturesque village of Salkhaiter on the foot of the Murree hills, some 15 kms from Rawal Dam.

On a suo motu, a three-member bench comprising Chief Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar, Justice Ijazul Hassan and Justice Chaudhry Ejaz Yousaf dismissed the petition on the grounds that factual controversies were involved in the matter that could be determined by a competent forum.

The court had taken up the petition regarding plight of families of the village whose land was being allegedly acquired by the Punjab authorities forcibly by misusing the Land Acquisition Act 1894 to develop the private project by Bahria Town Scheme.

Talking to Dawn, Advocate Shafqat Abbasi, who represented the affected people, vowed to continue the struggle and said a civil suit was already pending before a civil court against the mutation of land.

Similarly, the Rawalpindi bench of the Lahore High Court is also seized with a writ petition against the land acquisition proceedings of the Punjab government besides a representation before the Board of Revenue Punjab in which the mutation of land in favour of the Bahria Town has been challenged, he said.

Before the proclamation of emergency and subsequent removal of the apex court judges, a five-member bench headed by now deposed Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry had stayed the acquisition of land by the provincial government.

Salkather is home to over 250 families who live in nearly 1,000 houses. According to the villagers, the land was inherited and more than 1,500 individuals depended on the little agricultural produces from the fields on the outskirts of the area.

In their application to the Supreme Court, the affected residents had accused the proprietors of Bahria Town of “forceful taking over of some 659 kanals of their forefathers.”

They alleged that the entire land acquisition had been done in violation of the law under which the government land could only be acquired for public purpose and welfare. They said by misinterpreting the law, the proprietors had intended to deprive the petitioners of their valuable ancestral land through coercive measures.