- Court suspends ordinance over citizen Abida Parveen’s petition.
- Law criminalises illegal possession of immovable property.
- CJ removes objections to petitions, seeks full bench formation.
LAHORE: The Lahore High Court on Monday temporarily halted the implementation of the Punjab Protection of Ownership of Immovable Property Ordinance, 2025 promulgated by the provincial government to fast-track property protection measures.
The decision came during hearings on petitions filed by Abida Parveen and others challenging the ordinance.
The Punjab government had promulgated the ordinance to protect lawful property owners and provide swift remedies against illegal occupation. The law grants extensive powers to Dispute Resolution Committees, chaired by deputy commissioners, and property tribunals headed by former judges or district judges, to resolve property disputes and take administrative action.
It also criminalises illegal possession of immovable property, with penalties ranging from five to ten years in jail and fines up to Rs1 million.
Lahore High Court (LHC) Chief Justice Aalia Neelum, presided over the proceedings. During the hearing, the court removed all objections to the petitions and recommended the formation of a full bench. It also ordered the repossession of properties that had been allocated under the new law.
The LHC CJ criticised the provincial government’s handling of the ordinance, saying it appeared to grant excessive powers without proper safeguards.
“If this law remains, even Jati Umra can be handed over [to someone else] in half an hour,” CJ Neelum remarked, referring to the residence of the ruling Sharif family.
She added that the law bypasses civil courts and judicial supremacy, leaving citizens with limited rights of appeal.
The court also questioned why the advocate general of Punjab was absent during the hearing. The government’s counsel explained that he was unwell.
She asked the chief secretary if he had even read the law, suggesting that it seemed to be designed to give unchecked powers to certain individuals. She questioned the purpose of the ordinance, saying: “If a matter is already under civil court proceedings, how can a revenue officer execute possession?”
The LHC CJ further criticised the law for undermining civil rights and judicial supremacy.
“You have eliminated the civil setup and civil rights. If it were up to you, you would even suspend the Constitution,” she remarked.
She warned that under the law, citizens have no right to appeal if their property is handed over to someone else and that the high court cannot even issue an injunction in such cases.
CJ Neelumnoted that the law allows complaints to be filed and properties to be taken away even when false documents or fake registrations are involved.
She said the government’s committee intimidates people, warning them that police will take action if possession is not given, and cautioned that patwaris (revenue officers) given authority under the ordinance could collude with land-grabbing groups in the future.
The court then removed all objections to the petitions and recommended forming a full bench, while also ordering the repossession of properties allocated under the law.
