Punjab CM says ordinance protects citizens, criticises court move as harmful to widows and poor
Punjab Chief Minister Maryam Nawaz. SCREENGRAB
Punjab Chief Minister Maryam Nawaz on Tuesday strongly criticised the Lahore High Court’s decision to suspend a new property law, warning that it would benefit the land mafia.
She was reacting to an order by LHC Chief Justice Alia Neelum, who on Monday suspended the implementation of the Punjab Property Ownership Ordinance and restored possession of properties seized under it.
The chief justice also recommended forming a full bench to hear objections to the law.
The Punjab Property Ownership Ordinance, passed last month, was aimed at curbing land grabbing across the province.
Under the law, a District Dispute Resolution Committee is set up in each district. It is headed by the deputy commissioner and includes the district police officer, additional deputy commissioner (revenue) and other officials.
The committee can summon records, hold hearings and take immediate administrative steps to protect property.
Complaints are to be decided within 90 days, with a one-time extension of another 90 days subject to approval by the commissioner.
Parties must appear in person. Lawyers are generally not allowed to represent them.
Read: LHC suspends Punjab property ordinance
Responding to the suspension of the Punjab Protection of Ownership of Immovable Property Act 2025, Maryam said the law was meant to help millions of citizens.
She said it empowered ordinary people to protect their property through a legal mechanism.
The chief minister argued that the court’s decision was not in line with principles laid down by the higher judiciary.
She warned that suspending the law would benefit land mafia and could be seen by the public as support for illegal elements.
“The law was not enacted for my personal benefit, and its suspension does not affect me personally, but it severely harms ordinary citizens, widows, the destitute, and the oppressed, who were meant to gain protection,” she said.
During Monday’s hearing, Chief Justice Neelum questioned how a revenue officer could enforce possession while a case was pending before a civil court.
The court said the move effectively nullified civil rights and undermined judicial authority.
The chief justice also noted that the law barred the high court from issuing a stay in such matters.
“You call someone on the phone and say, ‘Come, or your property is gone,’” she said. “You stand here while your house is being taken?”
She further raised concerns about safeguards in the law, questioning whether fake registrations and forged documents were being used.
The chief justice emphasised that only the complainant should act as the petitioner in such cases and said the issue required deeper judicial scrutiny.
