The Punjab government has established property tribunals in all districts under the Punjab Protection of Ownership of Immovable Property Ordinance, 2025. This decision, effective immediately, was confirmed through notifications issued by the Board of Revenue, Public Prosecution Department, and the Services and General Administration Department.
Accoridng to media reports, the newly created tribunals will cover a broad range of districts, including Lahore, Kasur, Sheikhupura, Nankana Sahib, Gujranwala, Sialkot, Narowal, Gujrat, Hafizabad, Mandi Bahauddin, Wazirabad, Rawalpindi, Murree, Chakwal, Attock, Jhelum, Talagang, Multan, Lodhran, Vehari, Khanewal, Sahiwal, Pakpattan, Okara, Bahawalpur, Bahawalnagar, Rahim Yar Khan, Dera Ghazi Khan, Taunsa, Rajanpur, Layyah, Muzaffargarh, Kot Addu, Faisalabad, Jhang, Chiniot, Toba Tek Singh, Sargodha, Khushab, Mianwali, and Bhakkar.
Each tribunal will have jurisdiction over its respective district, with temporary arrangements for some areas until nominations are finalised. Rawalpindi will manage Murree cases, Gujrat will oversee Wazirabad cases, Chakwal will handle Talagang, and Dera Ghazi Khan will cover Taunsa.
The Punjab government has appointed retired district and sessions judges as members of these tribunals to ensure fair and efficient handling of property cases. Prosecutors have been assigned to provide necessary legal support, while administrative functions will be managed by Assistant Commissioners (HR & Coordination), who will also serve as Registrars.
The creation of these tribunals comes after the Lahore High Court (LHC) emphasised the need for specialised forums to handle property possession cases, ensuring swift resolution while protecting the rights of lawful property owners. The LHC recently expressed concerns over the practices under the Punjab Property Ownership Act (PPOA), particularly regarding the issue of verbal possession orders.
In a separate development, the LHC has sent 18 petitions challenging property possession under the PPOA to a full bench. The court issued a stay order and questioned the legality of verbal possession orders issued by deputy commissioners (DCs) during the interim period before tribunals were fully established.
Chief Justice Aalia Neelum pointed out that the tribunals were not operational for over two months after the law’s notification, raising concerns about the legal validity of possession granted during this time.
Further, the chief justice criticized the practice of granting possession without written orders, asking whether such actions could be legally accepted.
The LHC also took serious note of allegations that a DC had granted possession despite a pending case in the high court, labeling this as “defiance of high court orders.” The state counsel acknowledged that the rules under the PPOA were still being formulated, but the court stressed that proceedings should not have started without clear guidelines in place.
