LAHORE: While suspending the operation of the recently promulgated Punjab Protection of Ownership of Immoveable Property Act, 2025, until the final adjudication of a plea challenging its constitutionality , Chief Justice of the Lahore High Court, Justice Ms. Aalia Neelum, referred the case for the constitution of a Full Bench.
The Chief Justice issued these directives in response to a petition by Mumtaz Hussain, who sought the Court’s intervention on the grounds that the Dispute Resolution Committee in Jhang District violated his property rights and fundamental constitutional guarantees.
.During the proceedings on Monday the Chief Justice observed saying valuable property rights, guaranteed under Articles 23 and 24 of the Constitution of Pakistan appeared to have been prima facie overlooked. Whereas the court found the procedures within the Act to be inconsistent with the right to a fair trial under Article 10(A) and remarked saying the Act might infringe upon rights protected by other laws.
After brief hearing arguments in the matter, the court issued directives to the Dispute Resolution Committee to restore status of the affected properties to their original state before the complaints were filed. It also suspended all provisions of the Punjab Protection of Ownership of Immoveable Property Act, 2025 amid granting stay order against proceedings under the Act until further orders.
Due to significance of the constitutional interpretation required in the plea, the court referred the matter for constitution of a Full Bench. Besides, the court has also issued notice to the Advocate General of Punjab to provide legal assistance on interpretation of the law in the matter.
During the course of proceedings the bench was apprised that the Punjab Protection of Ownership of Immoveable Property Ordinance was repealed on December 18, 2025, and replaced by the current Act.
Responding to the court, the Additional Advocate General admitted that Dispute Resolution Committees acted contrary to their mandate and were never authorized to restore possession of properties in question. It was also revealed that the committees acted without orders from a notified tribunal, which is the only body authorized to issue such directions.
Expressing dismay over the situation, the bench observed saying these committees were not competent to act in matters where cases are already pending before civil courts.
