Lahore High Court Suspends Punjab Property Ownership Ordinance, Chief Justice Issues Strong Remarks

Lahore: The Lahore High Court has suspended the implementation of the Punjab Property Ownership Ordinance while hearing petitions filed against the law, with Chief Justice Aalia Neelum making strong observations over its impact on citizens’ rights and judicial authority.

The hearing was conducted by Chief Justice Aalia Neelum on petitions filed by Abida Parveen and other petitioners. The court removed objections raised on the petitions and recommended the formation of a full bench. It also ordered the immediate reversal of all possessions handed over under the ordinance.

During the proceedings, the Punjab Chief Secretary appeared before the court on judicial orders. Criticizing the government, the Chief Justice remarked that if the ordinance remained in force, even properties such as Jati Umra could be vacated within half an hour.

The Chief Justice questioned the absence of the Advocate General Punjab, to which the government counsel replied that he was unwell. Justice Neelum responded sharply, saying she herself had been advised bed rest but was still presiding over the hearing.

Addressing the Chief Secretary, the Chief Justice said it appeared he had not even read the law, adding that the ordinance seemed designed to concentrate unchecked powers in a few hands. She questioned the very purpose of the law and asked how a revenue officer could take possession of property when a matter was already pending before a civil court.

Justice Neelum observed that the ordinance undermined the civil setup, fundamental rights of citizens, and judicial supremacy, warning that it effectively deprived citizens of the right to appeal. She further noted that the law even restricted the High Court from granting stay orders, creating a situation where property could be taken away through a simple phone call.

Raising concerns over the prevalence of fake registries and forged documents, the Chief Justice noted that the ordinance allowed the complainant to automatically become the petitioner. Declaring the law contrary to constitutional protections and the judicial system, the court suspended its implementation until the next hearing.