EDITORIAL: The Lahore High Court’s decision to suspend the enforcement of the Punjab Protection of Ownership of Immoveable Property Ordinance, 2025, marks a significant judicial intervention that underscores the primacy of constitutional safeguards, due process, and the rule of law.
Chief Justice Aalia Neelum’s remarks reveal serious institutional concerns about executive overreach and the erosion of fundamental civil rights in the name of administrative efficiency. At the heart of the controversy is the ordinance’s empowerment of dispute resolution committees, led by deputy commissioners, to adjudicate property disputes – an area traditionally and constitutionally reserved for civil courts. Without a clear constitutional or statutory foundation, such committees cannot be permitted to assume quasi-judicial authority over property ownership.
Property rights are not mere administrative conveniences; they are substantive civil rights protected by law. By authorising executive officials to decide ownership disputes and order police-assisted evictions on the basis of a single complaint, the ordinance appears to bypass established legal protections, including the right to be heard, the right of appeal, and judicial oversight. The chief justice’s observation that an affected citizen would have “no right of appeal” strikes at the very heart of natural justice. Equally troubling is the provision barring courts from granting stays in such matters. This effectively disables the judiciary from offering even temporary relief against potentially unlawful dispossession. In a legal system where procedural safeguards are essential, denying courts the power to intervene amounts to legitimising arbitrary state action. The suspension of the ordinance, therefore, reaffirms the judiciary’s constitutional role as a check on executive authority.
Justice Neelum’s reference to pending contempt proceedings against deputy commissioners and district police officers further highlights the risks of vesting sweeping powers in officials whose conduct has already come under judicial scrutiny. Her pointed question – whether such officials can be trusted to justly enforce the new law – raises broader concerns about governance, accountability, and institutional credibility. The court’s indication that contempt proceedings could be initiated against dispute resolution committees found to have abused their authority reinforces the seriousness of these concerns.
The court’s observations regarding revenue officers and the prevalence of fake registrations and fraudulent documents are equally significant. Land and property disputes across the country have long been marred by forged records and collusion within revenue departments. Allowing officials accused of issuing false documents to determine possession, particularly when cases are already pending before civil courts, risks compounding injustice rather than resolving it. Such decision-making could lead to conflicting outcomes and further erode public confidence in the legal system.
The formation of a full bench to hear the petitions reflects the gravity of the constitutional and legal questions involved. It also serves as a reminder that any reform aimed at resolving property disputes must be firmly anchored in law, transparency, and judicial oversight, rather than expedient administrative control.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Comments
Comments are closed for this article.