The Lahore High Court (LHC) on Friday ordered the return of property possession to a citizen after questioning actions taken under the Property Ownership Act by district-level committees.

The case has raised serious concerns over whether deputy commissioners (DCs) and DRC committees exceeded their legal authority.

The matter was heard by Lahore High Court Chief Justice Alia Neelam, on a petition filed by Muhammad Ali. The citizen who had obtained possession through a Dispute Resolution Committee (DRC) also appeared before the court.

During proceedings, the court ordered the citizen who took possession via the DRC committee to return it immediately.

Legality of DRC committee actions

“How can you defend the wrong?” the chief justice asked the lawyer representing the citizen who took possession. The lawyer admitted that committees formed under DCs had exceeded their powers.

Justice Neelam responded firmly, saying possession must be returned first, after which further legal discussion could take place.

The CJ questioned why action should not be initiated against committee members when even the lawyer acknowledged they acted beyond their authority. She remarked that if the patwari had performed duties on time, the dispute would not have arisen.

“When you bypass the system, this is what happens,” the chief justice observed.

Justice delivery system

The petitioner’s lawyer argued that when justice is not delivered through the system, people are forced to seek alternatives. Justice Neelam cautioned against emotional arguments, stating she was fully aware of the backlog of old cases. She also warned lawyers not to create dramatic statements merely to make headlines.

During arguments, the lawyer claimed that landlords had occupied 40 acres of land in Deepalpur. The opposing counsel stated that DRC committees had handed over possession within just 27 days.

The chief justice questioned who had the authority to pass such possession orders, to which it was stated that the committee had issued them.

Authority of DCs under scrutiny

One lawyer conceded that the DC’s decision was wrong. Justice Neelam pointed out that if DCs lacked legal authority, they could not act under the law.

When a request was made for the DC to hear the matter afresh, the CJ rejected it, stating that deciding ownership was not within the DC’s jurisdiction.

“This is not about ownership right now,” Justice Alia Neelam clarified. “The issue before me is whether DCs have the authority to decide such matters or not.”

She emphasized that decision-making authority rests elsewhere under the law.

Petitions sent to full bench

Justice Alia Neelam also heard petitions of 10 citizens, including Muhammad Aslam. The court subsequently referred all petitions to a full bench for comprehensive review.

The bench also sought records relating to the functioning and mandate of DRC committees.

The petitioner’s lawyer informed the court that after the ordinance was suspended, possession of one acre of land in Gujranwala was handed over on December 24.

Justice Neelam warned that if anyone took possession after a court suspension order, they would face legal consequences.