The Lahore High Court on Monday stayed the implementation of the Punjab Property Ownership Ordinance while hearing multiple petitions challenging the controversial law.

The hearing was conducted by Chief Justice Alia Neelam, who took up petitions filed against the Punjab Property Ownership Ordinance.

At the outset, the court removed objections to all the petitions and formally recommended the formation of a full bench to hear the matter, indicating the constitutional importance of the case.

Stay order, return of possessions

During the proceedings, the Lahore High Court ordered a stay on the implementation of the Punjab Property Ownership Ordinance. The court also directed that possessions already given under the ordinance be returned.

On the court’s orders, the Punjab chief secretary appeared before the bench.

Chief Justice Neelam remarked that if the law remains into effect, even Jati Umrah (the Sharif family residence) 'could be lost' in half an hour.

The court questioned why the advocate general was not present during the hearing. In response, the official lawyer informed the court that the advocate general was ill.

Sharp remarks from CJ

Reacting to the explanation, Chief Justice Neelam remarked that she herself was unwell and had been advised bed rest, yet was present in court.

Addressing the chief secretary, the chief justice questioned whether he had even read the law, adding that it appeared as though certain individuals wanted to concentrate all powers in their own hands.

Chief Justice Neelam raised serious concerns over the intent and consequences of the newly introduced law, questioning why it was enacted and what purpose it serves.

During the proceedings, the CJ observed that under the law, a union council officer could take possession of a property even while the matter is pending before a civil court, calling this a direct assault on the civil justice system.

Also Read: LHC questions Punjab property law, issues notices on pleas

She remarked that the legislation appeared to have dismantled the civil set-up, undermined civil rights, and eroded judicial supremacy. In strong remarks, she said that if given free rein, the authors of the law would have even suspended the Constitution.

The CJ pointed out that if a deputy commissioner were to hand over possession of someone’s house to another party, the affected person would be left with no effective right of appeal.

Highlighting another alarming provision, she noted that the law bars even the high court from staying such matters. She questioned a scenario where an official could simply make a phone call ordering someone to appear, warning that failure to comply would result in loss of possession. “You are standing here, and your house is being taken away,” she observed, underscoring the severity of the situation.

Chief Justice Neelam further noted that under the law, the person filing the complaint would automatically be treated as the petitioner, raising serious doubts about fairness. She also questioned whether the existence of fake registries and forged documents was being ignored, asking whether such documents would now be legitimized under this legal framework.

During the last hearing on the petitions on Dec 18, the LHC had raised sharp questions over the law and its implementation.

The hearing was held on a petition filed by citizen Saifullah against the Punjab Property Ownership Ordinance. During the proceedings, the court had issued notices on all petitions and sought replies from the Punjab government and relevant authorities by Dec 22.

The chief justice had expressed serious reservations over the authority given to patwaris and assistant commissioners under the law.

“These patwaris and ACs are so keen to become judges,” she remarked, adding that if they wish to decide cases, they should pass the required exams and formally join the judicial system.

She also questioned how a patwari could take action on a property matter when a related case is already pending before the Supreme Court. “Has Pakistan now become a jungle?” she asked.

She further questioned whether patwaris and tehsildars who prepare fake documents should be deciding property ownership issues.