CJ Neelum tells chief secretary if law remains in force, even Jati Umra could be taken up
Lahore High Court. PHOTO: FILE
Lahore High Court Chief Justice Alia Neelum sharply reprimanded the Punjab chief secretary during a hearing, accusing him of undermining judicial supremacy and warning that “if he got what he wanted, he might even suspend the Constitution.”
The hearing related to petitions challenging the Punjab Land Ordinance, including those filed by Abida Parveen and others. The court stayed enforcement of the order, recommended the formation of a full court to address the objections, and restored possession of the properties seized under the order.
The Punjab Real Estate Ordinance, passed last month, aimed at tackling land mafia, established a District Dispute Redressal Committee in each district, headed by the Deputy Commissioner, comprising members such as DPO, ADC Revenue and other concerned officials.
The committee has the authority to summon records, hold hearings, and take immediate administrative action to protect property. Complaints must be resolved within 90 days, with a possible 90-day extension approved by the Commissioner. The parties must appear in person; representation by lawyers will generally not be permitted.
Following the court order, the chief secretary appeared before the court. Chief Justice Neelum remarked that if the law remained in force, even Jati Umra residences could be taken over within half an hour.
The court asked why the attorney general did not appear. The government lawyer explained that the Punjab advocate general was ill. CJ Neelum replied: “I don’t feel well either; I was told to stay in bed, but here I am in court.”
Read: LHC declares illegal disembarkation of passengers without written reason
The chief justice questioned whether the chief secretary had read the law and suggested that some officials appeared to desire absolute powers. She asked about the purpose of this order.
The court asked how a tax official could assert possession while the case was still pending in a civil court. Chief Justice Neelum criticized the decision, saying it effectively nullified civil rights and judicial authority. She warned that if a deputy commissioner granted possession of someone’s house to another party, there would be no right of appeal.
She further pointed out that the law prevents the High Court from ordering a stay in such cases. “You call someone on the phone and say, ‘Come over, or your property is gone,'” she said. “Are you staying here while your house is taken?”
Chief Justice Neelum also expressed concerns over procedural safeguards, emphasizing that only the complainant should act as the petitioner, and questioned whether fake records and documents were being used in such cases.
