Lahore, December 22, 2025: The Lahore High Court (LHC) on Monday temporarily halted the implementation of the Punjab Protection of Ownership of Immovable Property Ordinance, 2025, following petitions challenging the law filed by Abida Parveen and others. The ordinance, promulgated by the provincial government earlier this year, was aimed at fast-tracking property protection measures for lawful owners and curbing illegal occupation.
The LHC, presided over by Chief Justice Aalia Neelum, criticised the ordinance for granting excessive powers to government officials without sufficient legal safeguards. The law empowers Dispute Resolution Committees, chaired by deputy commissioners, and property tribunals, headed by former or sitting judges, to adjudicate property disputes and take administrative action. It also criminalises illegal possession of immovable property, prescribing penalties of five to ten years in jail and fines of up to Rs1 million.
During the hearing, CJ Neelum raised serious concerns about the law bypassing civil courts, limiting citizens’ right to appeal, and potentially enabling misuse by officials. “If this law remains, even Jati Umra can be handed over in half an hour,” she remarked, referencing the residence of the Sharif family. She further questioned why civil rights were being sidelined and asked whether the chief secretary had read the ordinance, suggesting it appeared designed to give unchecked authority to certain individuals.
The court also noted the absence of the Advocate General of Punjab, who was reportedly unwell, and questioned the effectiveness of allowing revenue officers to execute possession even when matters are under civil court proceedings. CJ Neelum highlighted that the law could enable intimidation, collusion with land-grabbing groups, and misuse of authority by patwaris, noting that complaints could lead to property being seized even with fake registrations or documents.
As part of its interim orders, the LHC removed all objections to the petitions, recommended the formation of a full bench, and ordered the repossession of properties already allocated under the ordinance. The decision is seen as a strong assertion of judicial oversight and protection of citizens’ property rights, signalling that the court will closely examine any law that potentially undermines civil liberties and judicial supremacy.
This suspension underscores ongoing tensions between provincial administrative measures and judicial safeguards, with stakeholders awaiting a full bench ruling to determine the ordinance’s future.
