CM slams LHC suspension of Punjab property law

Maryam says halt favors land mafias, deprives poor of swift justice

LAHORE:

Punjab Chief Minister Maryam Nawaz has reacted to a court order for suspension of a newly promulgated land dispute law, stating that the order is not in accordance with the principles laid down by the superior judiciary.

Lahore High Court (LHC) Chief Justice Aalia Neelum on Monday issued an interim order, suspending the operation of the Punjab Protection of Ownership of Immovable Property Ordinance, 2025. The LHC also suspended decisions taken under the new legislation to take away the possession of properties.

It ordered the restoration of possession in cases where takeovers had been carried out under the ordinance and ordered listing of the petitions filed against the law before a full bench of the court.

Reacting to the order, the CM said in a statement that the law was enacted to provide relief to millions of people in Punjab who have been suffering for decades. The legislation, she said, was passed by the democratically elected Provincial Assembly to free the public from the clutches of powerful land mafias.

She emphasized that legislation is the constitutional right of the provincial assembly and cannot be obstructed. "The suspension of the law will benefit encroachment mafias, and the public will perceive it as support for land grabbers," she noted.

According to the CM, for the first time, a time limit of 90 days had been fixed for the disposal of land and property cases that have continued for years and even generations.

Maryam said the law provided comprehensive protection to the oppressed by covering all administrative and legal aspects, adding that stay orders in land cases often remain in force for decades.

The chief minister clarified that the law was not enacted for her personal benefit, nor has its suspension caused her any personal loss. "The suspension of the law will adversely affect the poor, the needy, the helpless, widows, and the oppressed whose grievances were being addressed."

The CM claimed that the court order has resulted in serious harm to people who have been victimized by encroachment and land mafias. "Without justice, the hope that the poor and the oppressed had finally begun to hold on to will be shattered," she added.

The Punjab Protection of Ownership of Immovable Property Ordinance, 2025 was notified on October 30 with the avowed aim to provide a robust shield to citizens against property fraud and illegal transfers.

The ordinance introduced a two-tier system for swift resolution of property disputes. A Dispute Resolution Committee (DRC), chaired by a deputy commissioner and comprising senior administrative and police officials, was set up in every district.

The committee had powers equivalent to a civil court, allowing it to summon individuals, examine records, and take administrative steps to protect lawful ownership.

It was required to decide complaints within 90 days, extendable once for another 90 days with approval from the divisional commissioner. If the DRC failed to achieve an amicable settlement, the matter was to be referred to a newly created Property Tribunal established in every district.

Each tribunal—to be headed by a former judge LHC or district judge—had exclusive jurisdiction to try all offences and title disputes, functioning both as a civil and sessions court.

It was obligated to conduct proceedings on a day-to-day basis and conclude trial within 90 days of receipt, ensuring faster justice for rightful property owners.

Information Minister Azma Bukhari, when asked whether the government was considering approaching the superior courts—the Supreme Court or the Federal Constitutional Court—against the order, said several options were under consideration. However, she did not disclose which option the government was likely to pursue.

Senior lawyer Azhar Siddique said he plans to file a contempt of court petition against the Punjab chief minister. He said he would seek the transcript of the chief minister's statement from PEMRA before filing the case in court. According to him, the chief minister's position squarely amounts to contempt of court. He added that the move was an attempt to revive the executive magistracy by granting judicial powers to deputy commissioners.