LAHORE:
Punjab Chief Minister Maryam Nawaz has reacted to a court order suspending a newly enacted land dispute law, saying the order is not in line with the principles laid down by the supreme judiciary.
Chief Justice Aalia Neelum of the Lahore High Court (LHC) 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 remove possession of properties.
It ordered restoration of possession in cases where expropriations had been effected under the ordinance and ordered listing of the petitions filed against the Act before a full court.
Reacting to the order, the CM said in a statement that the law was passed 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 repeal 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 deadline of 90 days was fixed for disposal of land and property cases that have been going on for years and even generations.
Maryam said the law provided comprehensive protection to the downtrodden by covering all administrative and legal aspects, adding that eviction orders in land cases often remain in force for decades.
The Chief Minister clarified that the Act was not passed for her personal benefit and its suspension has also not caused her any personal loss. “The repeal of the Act will have an adverse impact on the poor, the destitute, the helpless, widows and the downtrodden, whose grievances were addressed.”
The CM claimed that the court order has resulted in serious harm to people who have fallen victim to encroachments 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 stated objective of providing citizens with a robust shield against property fraud and illegal transfers.
The statute introduced a two-part system for the speedy resolution of property disputes. A Dispute Resolution Committee (DRC), headed by a Deputy Commissioner and comprising senior administrative and police officials, was constituted in each district.
The committee had powers similar to a civil court, allowing it to summon individuals, examine records, and take administrative steps to protect legal ownership.
It was required to dispose of complaints within 90 days, which could be extended once by another 90 days with the approval of the Divisional Commissioner. If the DRC failed to reach an amicable solution, the matter was to be referred to a newly created property court established in each district.
Each tribunal – to be presided over by an ex-judge LHC or district judge – had exclusive jurisdiction to hear all offenses and title disputes, and functioned as both a civil court and a court of sessions.
It was required to conduct cases on a daily basis and conclude the trial within 90 days of receipt, ensuring speedier justice for rightful property owners.
Information Minister Azma Bukhari, when asked if 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 reveal which option the government was likely to pursue.
Senior advocate Azhar Siddique said he plans to file a contempt of court petition against the Punjab chief minister. He said he would ask for the transcript of the chief minister’s statement from PEMRA before filing the case in court. According to him, the Prime Minister’s attitude clearly amounts to contempt of court. He added that the move was an attempt to revive the executive magistrate by giving judicial powers to deputy commissioners.
