Barrister Syed Ali Zafar, representing Bahria Town, prayed to a special bench comprising Justice Jawaad S Khawaja and Justice Khilji Arif Hussain in human rights case No 10322-P/2009 that all the claims filed against Bahria Town should be decided in accordance with the judgment passed in Dr Arsalan’s case in which the court disposed of the matter within four days.

The Supreme Court, however, directed the Bahria Town owner to file reply today (Tuesday) on different pleas pertaining to forcible possession of hundreds of kanals of land. The court was hearing a suo moto case regarding murder of Raja Fayyaz Ahmed, a security guard of DHA, allegedly by Bahria Town men.

The court rejected the Bahria Town counsel’s plea to dismiss the applications, which were not being pursued by the applicants, as they were not present in the courtroom.Barrister Syed Ali Zafar, on behalf of Bahria Town, filed reply on the applications of Mirza Fazal Naeem, Muhammad Hanif Khan, Farooq Ahmed, Wapda Engineers Cooperative Housing Society through its president, Fayyaz Alam, Muhammad Naseer, Abdul Hameed and Naseer Ahmed, who alleged that their hundreds of kanals of land was forcibly occupied by Bahria Town.

Barrister Ali Zafar said the apex court was not a trial court, which will decide civil disputes between the private parties, or criminal matters, itself but its jurisdiction under Article 185(3) was for enforcement of fundamental rights on the matter of public importance.

“No person can bring a private civil dispute of whatsoever nature directly to the Supreme Court under Article 185(3) unless such action fulfils the requirements of the article,” he added.Quoting the Supreme Court’s latest judgment in the Dr Arsalan Iftikhar case, Ali Zafar said due process should be followed in that case. Therefore, suo moto proceedings could not be used as a process of abuse by anyone for ill motives. “This dispute can only be resolved through trial and no decision of this civil dispute of private nature can be made by the Supreme Court in violation of Article 10A. In fact, a civil suit is pending.”

“The apex court is also neither an investigation agency nor a trial court. In this case there is a criminal matter brought before the Supreme Court, it is for the appropriate investigating agency to investigate the case and for the prosecution to prosecute any accused in the appropriate trial court which deals with the trial of the accused,” he submitted.

The barrister said it was a necessary consequence of this fundamental right that the court would not take any action that would cause prejudice to the accused in the proceedings at the trial. “This principle is also in consonance with Article 10A.”

“On the basis of the above principles the application at best contains allegations made against Bahria Town (Pvt) Limited which according to Bahria Town (Pvt) Limited are baseless, false, fabricated and denied,” he added.

Ali Zafar said it was obvious that the dispute raised was of a civil nature and in order to decide what were the true facts and who was right or wrong; this would require proper adjudication and trial on the basis of evidence by a competent court of law. Later, the court adjourned the hearing till today (Tuesday).