The Lahore High Court on Monday stayed the implementation of the Punjab Property Ownership Ordinance while hearing multiple petitions challenging the controversial law, terming the matter constitutionally significant.
The hearing was conducted by Alia Neelam, who took up petitions filed against the Punjab Property Ownership Ordinance. At the outset, the court removed objections to all petitions and formally recommended the formation of a full bench to hear the case, underscoring its constitutional importance.
During the proceedings, the court ordered an immediate stay on the implementation of the ordinance and directed that possessions already handed over under the law be returned. On the court’s instructions, the Punjab chief secretary appeared before the bench.
Chief Justice Neelam observed that if the law remained in force, even Jati Umrah, the Sharif family residence, “could be lost in half an hour,” highlighting the far-reaching implications of the ordinance.
The court also questioned the absence of the advocate general. When informed that he was unwell, the chief justice remarked that she herself had been advised bed rest but was still presiding over the hearing.
Addressing the chief secretary, Chief Justice Neelam questioned whether he had even read the law, remarking that it appeared some individuals wanted to concentrate all powers in their own hands. She raised serious concerns over the intent behind the ordinance and questioned why it was enacted in its present form.
The chief justice noted that under the law, a union council officer could take possession of a property even while a related matter was pending before a civil court, calling it a direct assault on the civil justice system.
She further observed that the legislation appeared to dismantle the civil setup, undermine civil rights, and erode judicial supremacy. In strong remarks, she said that if given unchecked authority, the framers of the law would have even suspended the Constitution.
Highlighting another alarming aspect, the chief justice pointed out that if a deputy commissioner handed over possession of a house, the affected person would be left without an effective right of appeal. She also noted that the law bars even the high court from staying such actions.
“You are standing here, and your house is being taken away,” she remarked, describing a scenario where an official could order someone to appear through a phone call, with non-compliance resulting in loss of property.
Concerns over fairness and fake documentation
Chief Justice Neelam also questioned provisions that treat the complainant as an automatic petitioner, raising doubts about fairness. She expressed concern over whether fake registries and forged documents would effectively be legitimised under the ordinance.
The court recalled that during the previous hearing on December 18, it had already raised serious reservations about the law, particularly the authority granted to patwaris and assistant commissioners.
“These patwaris and ACs are so keen to become judges,” the chief justice had remarked earlier, adding that anyone wishing to decide cases should pass judicial exams and formally join the judiciary.
The matter arose from a petition filed by citizen Saifullah, with the court having sought replies from the Punjab government and relevant authorities by December 22. Further proceedings are expected once the full bench is constituted.
