DAWN.COM

Today's Paper | October 23, 2024

Published 14 Oct, 2024 07:56am

Dino Valley situated within ‘protected wasteland’, KP govt tells SC

ISLAMABAD: The Khyber Pakhtunkhwa government disclosed that the amusement park Dino Valley, another project of Monal’s owner Luqman Ali Afzal, is situated within the ‘protected wasteland’, also known as Guzara Forest.

Guzara Forest means protected wasteland of villages set aside at the time of regular settlement for meeting the requirements of landowners and right holders in the areas comprising districts of Haripur, Abbottabad, Mansehra, Kohistan, and Batagram or elsewhere in the province.

According to the KP’s Guzara Forest Rules, “Management and administration of Guzara forests shall be carried out under the general supervision and control of the Conservator of Forests concerned…in accordance with the approved management plan, who shall have the authority to issue instructions and directions, not inconsistent with the provisions of the ordinance and these rules, as he may consider appropriate for the purpose.”

In response to the report submitted to the Supreme Court by the KP government in the case related to the illegal construction of Monal and La Montana restaurants in the Margalla Hills National Park (MHNP), it said the land of Dino Valley was private-owned ‘Shamlat’. The report said, “As per the forest record, the area in question is ‘Protected Wasteland’ (Guzara Forest).”

Report says construction at theme park found in accordance with master plan

The report stated that “the ownership of the enterprise known as Dino Valley rests in a company namely M/s A-CUBE Private Limited, registered with Security and Exchange Commission of Pakistan (SECP) having Mr Luqman Ali Afzal, as Chief Executive Officer as well as Director and Mr Ali Abbas.”

Giving the historical background, the report said, “The land in question belonged to Rajgan, nationalised in 1961 and then given to the Provincial Land Commission and re-purchased by the Rajgan in 1964 and its ownership changed numerous times. However, the ownership for the first time went to an individual outside of the area in 2016. Further, the ownership of the land in question went to Mr Luqman Ali Afzal and Syed Ali Abbas in 2017.”

As per the report, the chief minister on Aug 9, 2021, imposed Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code against the construction, but the order was set aside by the Peshawar High Court.

The report stated that “as per inspection of Dino Valley theme park dated Sept 7, 2024 by the relevant building staff of the Tehsil Municipal Authority and Galiyat Development Authority, the construction/structures on the spot area were found in accordance with the master plan approved by the TMA Khanpur”. The KP government submitted the report along with the photographs of Dino Valley.

Pine City

The report also highlighted the construction of the Pine City and submitted its aerial photographs to the apex court. Previously, the GDA’s director general told the Supreme Court that owners of Pine City had secured a stay when the authority restrained the developers from raising construction at the site.

According to the website of Pine City, this housing society in Margalla Hills offers 1,2,3, 4, and 8 kanal villas and the total number of villas is 1,068.

“Pine City Islamabad comprises the latest and modern business and commercial centres. Almost 13 iconic commercial centres are designed and planned that include all the latest and trendy services and facilities,” said the website.

During the Aug 15 hearing, when the Chief Justice of Pakistan told the owner of the housing society that he was destroying the Margalla Hills, the owner maintained that he was developing the hills and wanted to build a ‘nature adventure park’.

The name of Pine City suggests some kind of housing society, the CJP quipped.

The owner replied that he also faced losses due to the name, adding he had also planted many trees in the area. But the court made it clear that no construction work could be done inside the national park.

The owner again contested by stating that the land he owned was outside the national park area. The CJP observed that he could keep his ownership but could not build any infrastructure on these lands.

Published in Dawn, October 14th, 2024

Read Comments

What is the 26th Constitutional Amendment? Next Story