LAHORE:
Punjab Chief Minister Maryam Nawaz has reacted to a court order ordering the suspension of a recently enacted land dispute law, saying the order was not in accordance with the principles laid down by the higher judiciary.
Lahore High Court (LHC) Chief Justice Aalia Neelum on Monday issued an interim order suspending the operation of the Punjab Protection of Immovable Property Ordinance, 2025. The LHC also stayed decisions taken under the new legislation to remove ownership of properties.
He ordered restoration of possession in cases where acquisitions had been made pursuant to the order and ordered listing of petitions filed against the law before the full court.
Reacting to the order, the CM said in a statement that the law was enacted to provide relief to millions of people in Punjab who have been suffering for decades. The legislation, she explained, was passed by the democratically elected Provincial Assembly to free the public from the clutches of powerful land mafias.
She stressed that legislation is a constitutional right of the provincial assembly and cannot be hindered. “Suspension of the law will benefit encroachment mafias, and the public will perceive it as supporting land grabbers,” she noted.
According to the CM, for the first time, a deadline of 90 days has been fixed for disposal of land and real estate matters which have been going on for years, even generations.
Maryam said the law provided complete protection to the downtrodden by covering all administrative and legal aspects, adding that stay orders in land cases often remained in force for decades.
The chief minister clarified that the law was not enacted for his personal benefit and its suspension did not cause him any personal loss. “The suspension of the law will have adverse consequences on the poor, the needy, the helpless, the widows and the downtrodden whose grievances have been addressed.”
The CM claimed that the court order had caused serious harm to people who were victims of encroachment and land mafias. “Without justice, the hope that the poor and oppressed had finally begun to cling to will be shattered,” she added.
The Punjab Protection of Immovable Property Ordinance, 2025, was notified on October 30 with the stated aim of providing citizens with a strong shield against real estate fraud and illegal transfers.
The ordinance introduced a two-tier system for speedy resolution of property disputes. A Dispute Resolution Committee (DRC), chaired by a deputy commissioner and comprising senior administrative and police officials, has been set up in each district.
The committee had powers equivalent to those of a civil court, allowing it to summon individuals, review records, and take administrative action to protect legal property.
He was required to decide the complaints within 90 days, renewable once for another 90 days with the approval of the divisional commissioner. If the DRC failed to reach an amicable settlement, the matter was to be brought before a newly created land court established in each district.
Each court, headed by a former LHC judge or district judge, had exclusive jurisdiction to try all offenses and title disputes, functioning as both a civil court and a court of sessions.
He was required to conduct the proceedings on a daily basis and conclude the case within 90 days of receipt, thereby ensuring faster justice for the rightful owners.
Asked if the government was considering approaching the higher courts – the Supreme Court or the Federal Constitutional Court – to challenge the order, Information Minister Azma Bukhari said several options were being explored. However, she did not reveal which option the government was likely to follow.
Senior lawyer Azhar Siddique said he was planning to file a contempt of court petition against the Punjab chief minister. He said he would seek the transcript of the chief minister’s statement from PEMRA before taking the matter to court. According to him, the chief minister’s stand amounts to contempt of court. He added that the move was an attempt to revive the executive judiciary by granting judicial powers to deputy commissioners.
