CM Maryam Nawaz calls LHC suspension of property ordinance “unjust”

LAHORE: Punjab Chief Minister Maryam Nawaz Sharif has expressed strong reservations over the Lahore High Court’s (LHC) suspension of the Punjab Protection of Ownership of Immovable Property Ordinance 2025. She said that the move undermines efforts to provide long-delayed justice in land and property disputes.

In her reaction, the chief minister said the ordinance was introduced to resolve land and property cases that have remained unresolved for years, and in some cases generations, within a fixed timeframe of 90 days. She said the law was designed to bring relief to millions of people across Punjab who have suffered due to prolonged litigation and exploitation.

CM Maryam Nawaz stated that the ordinance was approved by the democratically elected Punjab Assembly to protect citizens from influential land grabbers and occupation mafias. According to her, the law empowered ordinary people for the first time to safeguard their legally owned land and property through an evidence-based and comprehensive legal framework.

The chief minister argued that the suspension of the ordinance does not align with principles previously laid down by the Supreme Court. She warned that halting the law would benefit land mafias and could be perceived by the public as indirect support for such elements.

Highlighting longstanding issues in land disputes, Maryam Nawaz said that stay orders have remained in place for decades in many cases, forcing common citizens to struggle endlessly for justice. She added that the suspended law was meant to provide protection to those who had been repeatedly victimized.

Clarifying her position, she said the ordinance was not introduced for her personal gain and that its suspension does not affect her directly. She said that the real loss would be borne by people affected by illegal occupation, including the poor, widows, and other vulnerable segments of society.

Maryam Nawaz maintained that legislation is a constitutional right of the provincial assembly and should not be obstructed. She concluded by saying that the court’s decision risks shattering the hopes of justice that many oppressed citizens had attached to the ordinance.