Punjab Chief Minister Maryam Nawaz on Tuesday criticised the Lahore High Court’s decision to suspend the Punjab Protection of Ownership of Immovable Property Act 2025, warning that the move could strengthen land mafias and weaken legal safeguards for ordinary citizens.
The remarks followed an order issued on Monday by Lahore High Court Chief Justice Alia Neelum, who suspended the implementation of the newly enacted property law and directed the restoration of possession of properties seized under its provisions. The chief justice also recommended constituting a full bench to hear challenges to the legislation.
The law, passed last month, was introduced to curb land grabbing across Punjab. It provides for the creation of District Dispute Resolution Committees in every district, headed by the deputy commissioner and comprising the district police officer, the additional deputy commissioner (revenue), and other officials.
Under the ordinance, these committees are empowered to summon official records, conduct hearings and take immediate administrative measures to protect disputed property. Complaints are required to be decided within 90 days, with a one-time extension of a further 90 days subject to the commissioner’s approval. Parties must appear in person, and legal representation is generally not permitted.
Reacting to the court’s intervention, Maryam Nawaz said the legislation was enacted to help millions of people protect their property through a legal mechanism. She argued that the suspension ran contrary to principles laid down by higher courts and would be perceived as support for illegal land operators.
She said the law was not meant to serve any personal interest and that its suspension would disproportionately affect vulnerable segments of society, including widows, the poor and the destitute, who lack the means to pursue prolonged civil litigation.
During the hearing, Chief Justice Neelum questioned how a revenue officer could enforce possession while a dispute remained pending before a civil court. The bench observed that such powers could effectively override civil rights and undermine judicial authority.
The court also expressed concern over a provision barring the high court from issuing stay orders in matters arising under the law. The chief justice raised questions about procedural safeguards, including the risk of fake registrations and forged documents being used to justify administrative action.
Emphasising the need for deeper judicial scrutiny, the chief justice noted that only the complainant should act as the petitioner in such cases and indicated that the legislation required comprehensive examination before it could be enforced.
