• Term legislation ‘unconstitutional and unlawful’
• SCBA, LHCBA accuse provincial govt of ‘appeasing’ land mafia
• Court refers matter to LHC CJ for full bench

ISLAMABAD/LAHORE: The controversy surrounding the recently enacted Punjab Protection of Ownership of Immovable Property Act, 2025 intensified on Wednesday as various lawyers’ associations — irrespective of their political affiliation — endorsed the Lahore High Court’s intervention to suspend its implementation.

Pakistan Bar Council (PBC) Vice Chairman Chaudhry Tahir Nasrullah Warraich strongly condemned the statement made by Chief Minister Maryam Nawaz, in which she reportedly sought to justify the law empowering deputy commissioner-led committees to decide property disputes.

The Punjab chief minister had argued that the law was enacted to provide long-awaited relief to millions of citizens suffering from prolonged land and property disputes.

On Dec 22, LHC Chief Justice Aalia Neelum suspended the operation of the law and announced that a full bench would be constituted to hear and decide the matter.

The PBC vice chairman stated that the enactment of the law questioned the jurisdiction of patwaris and “unlawfully” empowered assistant commissioners beyond their mandate.

He commended the LHC’s interim order, stating that the new law would dismantle the civil justice system, undermine civil rights and erode judicial supremacy, as it allowed a revenue officer to hand over possession of property in a matter pending before a civil court.

Mr Warraich said the judiciary had the exclusive mandate to interpret laws, and the LHC chief justice was fully competent to pass such an interim order. He added that the legal fraternity stood with the chief justice and the judiciary in support of the ruling against the legislation.

PBC member Ahsan Bhoon, who also heads the Independent Group, urged the chief minister to withdraw her statement regarding the suspension of the law.

Speaking to the media at the Lahore High Court, he said those who drafted the law and provided flawed advice were responsible for the situation.

Mr Bhoon termed the chief minister’s remarks about the chief justice ‘inappropriate’ and warned that lawyers would take to the streets if the government continued with its actions.

SCBA

Similarly, Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) President Haroonur Rashid, Secretary Malik Zahid Aslam Awan and the 28th cabinet of the association maintained that the legislation was not only “unconstitutional and unlawful” but also in “conflict” with the Civil Procedure Code, Criminal Procedure Code, Evidence Act and other relevant laws, rendering them ineffective.

The SCBA cabinet appreciated the high court’s interim order suspending the enforcement of the legislation and noted that the LHC chief justice had recognised that it compromised settled legal principles concerning property matters.

“It has established a parallel jurisprudence whereby property disputes are to be resolved by deputy commissioners, district police officers, revenue officers, and other relevant government officials, rather than through judicial proceedings, which by no means is lawful,” the statement read.

The SCBA also expressed grave concern regarding the Punjab government and its chief minister, who allegedly appeared to be surrounded by aides “protecting the interests of land mafia and land grabbers”.

It said it fully endorsed the high court’s decision and extended complete support to the LHC chief justice, adding that criticism of the interim order was unfounded and unnecessary.

The association urged the provincial government to refrain from “implementing the unlawful aspirations of land mafias”.

LHCBA

The Lahore High Court Bar Association (LHCBA) also welcomed the chief justice’s decision against the property ownership law.

LHCBA President Asif Nissoana, who belongs to the Hamid Khan-led professional group, asked the government to refrain from appeasing land mafias.

‘Full bench’

Meanwhile, the Lahore High Court’s Rawalpindi Bench referred a constitutional challenge to the property protection legislation to the LHC chief justice for the constitution of a full bench, observing that identical questions of law were already pending before the court.

Justice Jawad Hassan passed the order while hearing a petition filed by Tariq Mehmood against the Punjab government and others, in which the vires of proceedings initiated by the district administration under the newly enacted law were called into question.

The court was informed that the LHC CJ had already referred an identical matter for adjudication by a full bench.

Consequently, invoking Chapter 3, Part-B, Rule 4-A of the Lahore High Court Rules and Orders (Volume V), Justice Hassan referred the present petition to the LHC chief justice for appropriate orders.

During the hearing, the Rawalpindi deputy commissioner and assistant commissioner defended the initiation of proceedings under the law, maintaining that its preamble aimed to protect lawful ownership of immovable property and to provide expeditious remedies against illegal dispossession.

They added that action was being taken under Sections 7, 9, and 10 of the law, including the referral of disputes to a deputy commissioner-led dispute resolution committee and the adoption of preventive measures such as taking surety or sealing property.

However, the counsels for the petitioner argued that the tribunal envisaged under the law had neither been notified nor made functional, rendering all proceedings unlawful.

They also contended that Sections 8(4) and 8(5), which conferred civil court-like powers on dispute resolution committees, were ultra vires the Constitution.

An objection was also raised to the vaguely defined “preventive measures” under Section 9, for which, they said, no proper procedure or remedy had been provided.

Published in Dawn, December 25th, 2025