LHC raises concerns over Punjab property law
Pakistan
It is pertinent to note that Advocate Qamar Zaman Awan and others had filed the petitions.
LAHORE (Muhammad Ashfaq) – The Lahore High Court (LHC) has expressed serious reservations over a property-related law enacted by the Punjab government.
Chief Justice of the Lahore High Court, Justice Aalia Neelum, heard petitions challenging the Punjab Property Ownership Ordinance. While hearing the case, the court removed objections on six petitions but raised strong concerns over the law.
Questioning the government’s legal representative, the court remarked, “What kind of joke is this? Do patwaris and assistant commissioners now aspire to become judges? If a matter is pending before the Supreme Court (SC), how can a patwari take action? Has Pakistan turned into a jungle? Those who prepare fake documents as patwaris and tehsildars will now decide property ownership?”
Chief Justice Aalia Neelum observed that such injustice would not be allowed. She said that if assistant commissioners and patwaris were so keen on becoming judges, they should pass examinations and formally join the judicial system.
She questioned the role of the Advocate General’s office, asking whether it would now start issuing degrees to people. She further asked who drafted the law and whether any legal experts were consulted, adding that although tribunals had been established, they appeared to be nothing more than an illusion.
It is pertinent to note that Advocate Qamar Zaman Awan and others had filed the petitions.
The petitions argued that the Punjab government introduced a new law granting deputy commissioners and assistant commissioners authority over property disputes. One petitioner stated that a property in Faisalabad had been taken on a 50-year lease and that the case was pending before the SC.
However, the opposing party approached the deputy commissioner under the new law, following which the DC Faisalabad ordered the sealing of the property. The petitioners requested the court to set aside the DC’s decision.
Subsequently, the LHC issued notices on the petitions and sought replies by December 22.
