Government cash is up for grabs.

The fight is over who will get the proceeds if the land is snapped up to extend a park, a court heard yesterday.

Disputes have raged over the site at Mill Creek, Pembroke, since at least the 1930s.

Controversy Lane, which runs through it, may even have got its name because of the rows.

In 1980, trustees claiming to own the land clashed with alleged squatters in a major court battle.

But the fight ended without a clear winner, and is now back in court -- complicated by the death of some major players.

The disputed land, about five and a half acres, is between Tulo Valley and the creek.

In 1980 trustees of the estate of the late Mr. William Chiappa, who claimed ownership of the site, tried to evict eight "squatters''.

The "squatters'' claimed they had lived on the land rent-free for at least 20 years, giving them the right to the property.

But a Supreme Court judge granted possession to the trustees and told the "squatters'' to leave the site and demolish their homes.

The "squatters'' took the case to the Appeal Court, which in 1982 over-ruled the judge.

It said the Chiappa trustees had failed to prove they were the legal trustees of the estate.

The Appeal Court judges said Mr. Chiappa's will should have been brought before them as evidence.

Yesterday, back in Supreme Court, the battle started again with new lawyers.

Mr. Edward King represents the trustees of Mr. Chiappa and his late son Lawrence. They are lawyer Mr. Charles Vaucrosson, the Bank of Bermuda and Mrs.

Catherine Chiappa Belvedere, daughter of Mr. Lawrence Chiappa.

Mr. Philip Perinchief represents alleged squatters Mr. Henry Correia, his son Mr. William Correia and their relative Ms Deborah Smith.

Mr. King told the court the status of the trustees had never been questioned by the original defence lawyer or judge. That was why wills had not been given to the Appeal Court as evidence.

He asked the judge, the Hon. Mr. Justice Ground, to make a decision without the "farce'' of another full trial.

There was no new evidence and the main issue had been decided -- his clients were the owners of the land because the occupants had been paying rent up to 1974.

But Mr. Perinchief said the Chiappa wills would be contested. The boundaries of the land were also unclear.

Some of the site had been sold to Government, he added, and a separate case was in the making between his clients and Government.

Mr. King said all parties were likely to suffer because it was known what Government's attitude was to the land.

All of it was to be compulsorily purchased by Government, he said. The argument was about who got the proceeds of the purchase, the court heard.

Mr. Justice Ground said there were questions of fact and law to be decided. A trial was needed, he said.

After yesterday's hearing, Mr. Perinchief said his clients might contest any attempt by Government to take the land.

Dr. James Burnett-Herkes, Permanent Secretary at Environment, said he could not comment on whether Government had plans to compulsorily purchase land at Mill Creek.

He said land to create Mill Creek Park had been bought from the Chiappa estate in the mid-to-early 1980s.

The remaining land would make a nice addition to the park, he said. But any decision to buy it would rest with Parliament.

In a case of disputed ownership, any money paid for the land would be held by the courts until the matter was settled.

Historian Mr. Colin Benbow said it was possible the long-running land dispute was behind the name Controversy Lane.