CJ Neelum tells chief secretary that if law remained in force, even Jati Umra could be seized
Lahore High Court. PHOTO: ARCHIVE
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 could even suspend the Constitution.”
The hearing concerned petitions challenging the Punjab Property Ownership Ordinance, including those filed by Abida Parveen and others. The court stayed the implementation of the ordinance, recommended formation of a full tribunal to address the objections and restored possession of the properties seized under the ordinance.
The Punjab Property Ownership Ordinance, passed last month and aimed at combating land mafia, established a District Dispute Resolution Committee in each district, headed by the Deputy Commissioner, which includes members such as the DPO, ADC Revenue and other relevant officials.
The committee has the authority to subpoena minutes, hold hearings, and take immediate administrative action to protect property. Complaints must be resolved within 90 days, with a possible 90-day extension approved by the Commissioner. The parties must appear in person; Generally, representation by attorneys will not be permitted.
Following the court’s order, the chief secretary appeared before the court. Chief Justice Neelum noted that if the law remained in force, even Jati Umra residences could be recaptured within half an hour.
The court asked why the Advocate General had not appeared. The government lawyer explained that the Advocate General of Punjab was not well. CJ Neelum responded: “I’m not feeling well either; I’ve been told to be on bed rest, but here I am in court.”
Read: LHC declares unloading passengers illegal without written reason
The Chief Justice questioned whether the Chief Secretary had read the law and suggested that some officials seemed to desire absolute powers. He asked about the purpose behind the ordinance.
The court asked how a revenue official could enforce possession when the matter was still pending in a civil court. Chief Justice Neelum criticized the move, saying it effectively nullified civil rights and judicial authority. He warned that if a deputy commissioner granted possession of someone’s home to another party, there would be no right of appeal.
He 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 will be gone,’” he said. “Are you here while they take your house?”
Chief Justice Neelum also expressed concern over procedural safeguards, emphasizing that only the complainant should act as the petitioner, and questioned whether false records and forged documents were being used in such cases.
