RECORDER REPORT

LAHORE: Lahore High Court (LHC) Chief Justice Aalia Neelum on Monday suspended the enforcement of the Punjab Protection of Ownership of Immoveable Property Ordinance, 2025, and ordered the reversal of all property possessions taken under the law across Punjab.

The chief justice issued the order while hearing several identical petitions challenging the ordinance. She declared the petitions admissible, issued notices to all respondents and strongly criticised the legislation, observing that it had effectively deprived citizens of their civil rights. She remarked that it would have been preferable to suspend the Constitution rather than enforce such a law.

Earlier, the CJ overruled objections raised by the LHC registrar’s office and ordered the formation of a full bench to hear the petitions.

During the hearing, Justice Neelum noted that under the ordinance, a single complaint could lead to police-assisted evictions, adding that even prominent properties would not be safe if an ownership claim was filed. She said courts decide cases on reason, not emotion, and expressed concern that under the existing framework even the residences of sitting judges might not remain secure.

The CJ also questioned the role of revenue officials, asking whether officials accused of issuing false documents should be authorised to hand over possession of properties. She further asked whether district administrators were being placed above the Supreme Court of Pakistan, and questioned how a revenue officer could grant possession when a case was pending before a civil court.

Justice Neelum observed that the ordinance undermined the powers of civil courts working under the Pakistan Penal Code and the Civil Procedure Code. Addressing the chief secretary, she remarked that under the law there appeared to be no right of appeal even if a deputy commissioner handed over possession of someone’s house to another person.

Referring to pending contempt proceedings against deputy commissioners and district police officers, the chief justice questioned whether such officials could be trusted to lawfully enforce the ordinance. She also expressed concern over the possibility of fake registrations and fraudulent documents, observing that such practices had become routine.

The court raised serious reservations about dispute resolution committees established under the ordinance, questioning their legal standing and authority to decide property ownership, and asked why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against committees found to have abused their powers.

During the proceedings, a law officer informed the court that the Advocate General Punjab was ill. In response, the CJ remarked that she herself was unwell and had been advised bed rest but was present to hear the matter.

Questioning the purpose and rationale of the ordinance, she concluded that it appeared the chief secretary had not read the law.