CJ Neelum tells the Chief Secretary if the law remains in force, even Jati Umra may be taken back
Lahore High Court. PHOTO: FILE
Lahore High Court Chief Justice Alia Neelum sharply rebuked Punjab’s chief secretary during a hearing, accusing him of undermining judicial supremacy and warning that “if he had his way, he could even suspend the constitution.”
The hearing related to petitions challenging the Punjab Property Ownership Ordinance, including those filed by Abida Parveen and others. The court suspended the implementation of the ordinance, recommended the formation of a full bench to hear objections and restored possession of properties seized under the ordinance.
The Punjab Property Ownership Ordinance, passed last month, aimed at combating the land mafia established a District Dispute Resolution Committee in each district, headed by the Deputy Commissioner, including members such as DPO, ADC Revenue and other relevant officials.
The committee has the authority to call minutes, hold hearings, and take immediate administrative action to protect property. Complaints must be resolved within 90 days, with any 90-day extension approved by the Commissioner. The parties must meet in person; representation by lawyers will generally not be permitted.
Following the court’s order, the chief secretary appeared before the court. Chief Justice Neelum observed that if the law remained in force, even the Jati Umra residences could be repossessed within half an hour.
The court asked why the Advocate General had not appeared. The Government Counsel explained that the Advocate General of Punjab was unwell. CJ Neelum replied: “I am also ill; I have been told to lie in bed, but here I am in court.”
Read: The LHC declares unloading passengers without written justification illegal
The Chief Justice questioned whether the Chief Secretary had read the law and suggested that some officials seemed to want absolute powers. She asked about the purpose behind the order.
The court asked how a tax authority could enforce possession when the case was still pending in a civil court. Chief Justice Neelum criticized the move, saying it effectively nullified civil rights and judicial authority. She warned that if a Deputy Commissioner gave possession of someone’s house to another party, there would be no right of appeal.
She also emphasized that the law prevents the high court from issuing adjournments in such cases. “You call someone on the phone and say, ‘Come, or your property is gone,'” she said. “Are you standing here while your house is being taken?”
Chief Justice Neelum also raised concerns over procedural safeguards, stressing that only the complainant should act as the petitioner, and questioned whether false registrations and forged documents were being used in such cases.
