LAHORE (Muhammad Ashfaq) – The Lahore High Court (LHC) on Wednesday referred 18 more petitions filed against actions taken under the Punjab Property Ownership Act to a full bench after objections were removed, and has issued a stay order while seeking the complete record of proceedings carried out by the committees.
Chief Justice of the LHC Justice Aalia Neelum, heard the petitions including that of Abu Bakar. Advocate Shahid Rana and other lawyers appeared on behalf of the petitioners.
During the hearing, Chief Justice Justice Aalia Neelum observed that tribunals were supposed to be established under the Act with powers related to possession, but the notification for the tribunals was issued after two and a half months. She questioned under which law the committees continued handing over possession during this period.
The Chief Justice asked Assistant Advocate General Waqas Umar whether the relevant provision of the Act was being implemented, which states that if a matter is pending before a civil court, the deputy commissioner must file an application before that court, and the court is bound to transfer the case to the tribunal.
She further remarked how possession was being handed over verbally without written orders, asking whether such verbal instructions would be acceptable even if issued by a court without a formal order.
The Chief Justice questioned whether the tribunals had actually started functioning, noting that there was neither staff available nor clarity on where the tribunals would be operating. She asked whether this amounted to an overstepping of authority.
The court pointed out that the law does not mention committees having the power to hand over possession, and that under the Act, possession can only be ordered after the tribunal completes its proceedings. The Chief Justice questioned under which law the committees were instructing the police to take possession.
The petitioner’s lawyer informed the court that the Deputy Commissioner of Sheikhupura had verbally ordered the handing over of possession. The Chief Justice remarked that all petitions contain serious allegations and that the court is examining each case to determine what the law actually provides and what is being done in practice.
During the hearing of another petition, it was stated that despite the case being pending before the High Court, the deputy commissioner had proceeded with taking possession. The Chief Justice observed that this amounted to a violation of the High Court’s orders.
The government lawyer argued that the rules under the Act had yet to be framed. In response, the Chief Justice questioned how actions could be taken without rules, and how an affected party could challenge a decision if the deputy commissioner did not issue a written order. The court observed that a law cannot be considered incomplete—it is either complete or it is not.
Subsequently, the LHC sought the complete record of all actions taken by the committees and referred all cases to a full bench for further hearing.