CJ Neelum tells chief secretary if law remained in force, even Jati Umra could be repossessed
Lahore High Court Chief Justice Alia Neelum sharply rebuked the Punjab Chief Secretary during a hearing, accusing him of undermining judicial supremacy and warning that “if he had his way, he might even suspend the Constitution.”
The hearing concerned petitions challenging the Punjab Property Ownership Ordinance, including those filed by Abida Parveen and others. The court suspended the implementation of the ordinance, recommended the formation of a full bench to address objections, and restored possession of properties seized under the ordinance.
The Punjab Property Ownership Ordinance, passed just last month, aimed at combating land mafia established a District Dispute Resolution Committee in each district, headed by the Deputy Commissioner, including members such as the DPO, ADC Revenue, and other relevant officials.
The committee has the authority to summon records, hold hearings, and take immediate administrative measures to protect property. Complaints must be resolved within 90 days, with a possible extension of 90 days approved by the Commissioner. Parties must appear in person; representation by lawyers will generally not be allowed.
Following the court’s order, the Chief Secretary appeared before the bench. Chief Justice Neelum remarked that if the law remained in force, even the Jati Umra residences could be repossessed within half an hour.
The court inquired why the Advocate General had not appeared. The government’s lawyer explained that the Advocate General of Punjab was unwell. CJ Neelum responded, “I am also unwell; I have been told to be on bed rest, yet here I am in court.”
Read: LHC declares passengers offloading without written reason illegal
The Chief Justice questioned whether the Chief Secretary had read the law and suggested that some officials seemed to desire absolute powers. She asked about the purpose behind the ordinance.
The court asked how a revenue officer could enforce possession when the matter was still pending in civil court. Chief Justice Neelum criticised the move, 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 highlighted that the law prevents the High Court from issuing a stay on 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?”
Chief Justice Neelum also raised concerns over procedural safeguards, emphasising that only the complainant should act as the petitioner, and questioned whether fake registrations and forged documents were being used in such cases.
