DRC Has No Power to Evict or Restore Possession; Only Tribunal Can Pass Coercive Orders — Lahore High Court, Multan Bench.
DRC کے اختیارات اور ٹربیونل کی حدود — لاہور ہائیکورٹ ملتان بینچ کا اہم فیصلہ
تمہید
لاہور ہائیکورٹ ملتان بینچ نے W.P. No.15267 of 2025 میں پنجاب پروٹیکشن آف اونرشپ آف امووایبل پراپرٹی آرڈیننس 2025 کے تحت Dispute Resolution Committee (DRC) اور ٹربیونل کے اختیارات کی واضح حد بندی کر دی ہے۔ یہ فیصلہ ان معاملات میں نہایت اہم ہے جہاں انتظامیہ یا DRC زبردستی بے دخلی یا قبضہ بحال کرنے کی کوشش کرتی ہے۔
کیس کا پس منظر
درخواست گزار کے خلاف فریقِ مخالف نے آرڈیننس 2025 کے تحت DRC سے رجوع کیا۔ دورانِ کارروائی ایڈیشنل ڈپٹی کمشنر (ریونیو) کی جانب سے جائیداد خالی کرنے اور بصورتِ دیگر زبردستی کارروائی کی زبانی ہدایت دی گئی، حالانکہ اسی جائیداد سے متعلق کرایہ داری کا مقدمہ عدالت میں زیرِ التوا تھا۔ درخواست گزار نے اس اقدام کو قانون اور due process کے خلاف چیلنج کیا۔
قانونی فریم ورک
عدالت نے آرڈیننس 2025 کی دفعات 7، 8، 9، 10، 16 اور 17 کا جائزہ لیا اور یہ واضح کیا کہ قانون نے DRC اور ٹربیونل کے کردار الگ الگ متعین کر رکھے ہیں۔
DRC کا کردار
DRC ایک pre-adjudicatory ادارہ ہے جس کا کام شکایات وصول کرنا، ریکارڈ کی جانچ، فریقین کو سننا، انکوائری کرنا اور مفاہمت کی کوشش کرنا ہے۔ DRC کے پاس نہ تو بے دخلی کا اختیار ہے اور نہ ہی قبضہ بحال کرنے یا زبردستی کارروائی کا۔
ٹربیونل کے اختیارات
عدالت کے مطابق قبضہ ریگولیٹ کرنے، عبوری یا حتمی بے دخلی، بحالیِ قبضہ، معاوضہ اور نفاذِ حکم کے تمام اختیارات صرف ٹربیونل کو حاصل ہیں۔ سیکشن 16 اور 17 اس حوالے سے واضح اور غیر مبہم ہیں۔
سیکشن 9 — احتیاطی اقدامات کی حدود
سیکشن 9 کے تحت DRC صرف احتیاطی (preventive) نوعیت کے اقدامات کر سکتی ہے، جیسے مناسب ضمانت لینا یا جائیداد سیل کرنا۔ یہ اختیارات:
عارضی ہوتے ہیں
تحریری اور وجہ دار حکم کے متقاضی ہیں
سماعت کے بعد استعمال کیے جاتے ہیں
کسی عدالتی status quo کے خلاف نہیں ہو سکتے
عدالت کے اہم مشاہدات
عدالت نے واضح کیا کہ:
زبانی یا غیر تحریری احکامات غیر قانونی ہیں
زیرِ التوا عدالتی مقدمات کو نظر انداز کر کے انتظامی کارروائی نہیں ہو سکتی
قبضہ سے متعلق ہر coercive اقدام صرف ٹربیونل کے حکم سے ہو گا
نتیجہ
لاہور ہائیکورٹ نے درخواست نمٹاتے ہوئے ہدایت دی کہ DRC اپنی قانونی حدود میں رہتے ہوئے غیر جبری طریقے سے کارروائی کرے، درخواست گزار کو مکمل سماعت دی جائے اور ٹربیونل کے حکم کے بغیر کسی قسم کی بے دخلی یا زبردستی قبضہ نہ کیا جائے۔
عملی اہمیت
یہ فیصلہ انتظامیہ، وکلا اور عوام کے لیے واضح رہنمائی فراہم کرتا ہے کہ آرڈیننس 2025 کے تحت DRC نفاذی ادارہ نہیں اور قبضہ سے متعلق تمام فیصلہ کن اختیارات ٹربیونل کے پاس ہیں۔
Must read judgement
ORDER SHEET
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT
MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.
(JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT)
Writ Petition No.15267 of 2025.
Ghulam Jilani Aftab.
Versus Government of the Punjab, etc.
S. No. of
order/
Proceeding
Date of order/
Proceeding
Order with signature of Judge, and that of
Parties or counsel, where necessary
18.12.2025
Sh. Jamshed Hayat, Advocate for the petitioner.
Kanwar Sajid Ali, Assistant Advocate General Punjab.
Rana Shakeel Ahmad, Advocate for respondent No.5.
(On Watching Brief).
Through this Constitutional Petition filed under
Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of
Pakistan, 1973 ('The Constitution'), the petitioner has
primarily laid a challenge to the provisions of Section 8(4)
& 8(5) of the Punjab Protection of Ownership of
Immoveable Property Ordinance, 2025 ('The Ordinance,
2025'), requesting to declare the same ultra vires to the
Article 175(3) of the Constitution and likewise the
provisions of Section 16 (1), being ultra vires to the Article
12(1) of the Constitution.
During the course of arguments, learned counsel for
the petitioner submits that respondent No.5 has filed an
application under Section 7 of the Ordinance, 2025, before
the Dispute Resolution Committee ('DRC') which has been
referred to the respondent No.3/Addl. Deputy
Commissioner (Revenue), Multan, who has straightaway
P. No.15267 of 2025.
2
asked the petitioner to vacate the property and deliver
possession to respondent No.5 failing which the petitioner
will be dispossessed by force. He submits that this conduct
of respondent No.3 is alien to the Ordinance, 2025, hence,
he would be satisfied if the respondents be directed to adopt
the due process and do not adopt any coercive measures
against the petitioner.
On the other hand, learned Law Officer submits that
respondent No.5 has filed an application under Section 07
of the Ordinance, 2025, claiming that the petitioner is
illegal occupant on her land. He maintained that as yet no
adverse action has been taken against the petitioner, hence,
this petition is not maintainable and misconceived.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent
No.5 (on watching brief) submits that the petitioner is
illegal occupant over the rented premises who is not even
paying the rent, therefore, respondent No.5 moved
ejectment petition which has been allowed and final
eviction order has been passed against the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, while availing right of
rebuttal, maintains that although ejectment petition filed by
respondent No.5 was allowed by the learned Special Judge
Rent by dismissing the petitioner’s application for leave to
contest but on the appeal filed by the petitioner said order
was set-aside and matter was remanded to the learned Trial
Court for decision of the ejectment petition after recording
W.P. No.15267 of 2025.
3
evidence. He adds that ejectment petition is still pending
adjudication but before its conclusion the respondent No.5
has moved the application before DRC.
Heard. Record perused.
Since the petitioner has stepped backed from the
challenge laid to the provisions of the Ordinance, 2025,
hence, the question that whether the Ordinance or its
provisions or ultra vires or otherwise is not under
adjudication in this petition.
The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that
the verbal direction of respondent No.3/Addl. Deputy
Commissioner (Revenue), Multan, requiring the petitioner
to vacate the property and hand over possession to
respondent No.5 with warning of forcible dispossession is
alien to the scheme of the Ordinance, 2025, particularly
when respondent No.5 has already filed an eviction petition
regarding the disputed property which is sub judice. He,
therefore, seeks a direction to the respondents to follow due
process of law and to refrain from adopting any coercive
measures against the petitioner.
As per statement of objections and reasons, primary
objective of the Ordinance is to protect the ownership rights
of lawful owners of Immovable properties; to curb the
menace of illegal possession of immoveable property; and,
to provide both civil and criminal remedies to property
owners. The Ordinance introduces a streamlined
W.P. No.15267 of 2025.
4
mechanism for removal of illegal possession and mandates
dispute resolution before litigation, to provide relief to the
public.
Section 7 of the Ordinance, 2025, provides that a
complaint, for an offence under the Ordinance, 2025, may
be filed by the owner or title holder of the immoveable
property with the Deputy Commissioner of the district in
which the property situates. Such compliant shall be
entrusted to the Dispute Resolution Committee (DRC).
Section 08 of the Ordinance, 2025, provides that
DRC shall consist of:
a) Deputy Commissioner (Convener);
b) District Police Officer;
c) Additional Deputy Commissioner (Revenue) of the
district;
d) Assistant Commissioner concerned;
e) Sub-Divisional Police Officer concerned; and
f) an officer of any agency of the Government, to be coopted by the committee.
- Whereas, Sub-Section (2) of the Section 8 of the
Ordinance, 2025, confers following powers upon the
Committee:-
(2) The Committee may:
(a)
scrutinize the relevant record and provide
hearing to all concerned;
(b)
summon any person and Inquire into the
matter;
(c)
take any administrative action as it may deem
appropriate to protect and safeguard the
ownership of Immovable property but such
action shall not be inconsistent with any
provision of any law for the time being in
force;
W.P. No.15267 of 2025.
5
(d)
report any instance of corruption, collusion or
misconduct by a public official or any other
stakeholder in the process of dispute resolution
or disposal of complaint and recommend
disciplinary or legal action to the competent
authority of such public official; and
(e)
encourage amicable resolution of disputes.
Section 09 of the Ordinance, 2025, mentions that in
case an owner or title holder of immovable property
apprehends commission of an offence under the Ordinance,
he may file application before the Deputy Commissioner
concerned for taking preventive measures. Exact wording of
Section 09 is as under:-
- Preventive measures.-(1) In case, an owner or title
holder of immoveable property apprehends
commission of an offence under the Ordinance, he may
file application before the Deputy Commissioner
concerned for taking preventive measures.
(2)
On receipt of the application, the Deputy
Commissioner shall refer the matter to the Committee
which may call all the relevant parties, in person, and
after examining the relevant record and hearing the
parties, pass such order as it may deem fit and
appropriate and such order may include taking
reasonable and adequate surety or guarantee from the
party concerned or sealing of the property.
Section 10 of the Ordinance, 2025, provides that in
case the dispute has been resolved, the Committee shall
reduce it into writing and send the same to the Tribunal for
its approval and for passing judgment and decree thereupon.
Sub-Section (2) describes that if dispute resolution fails or
stipulated time elapses without a resolution, the Committee
shall, within thirty days of expiry of the stipulated period,
W.P. No.15267 of 2025.
6
refer the matter, with its opinion to the Tribunal for its
decision.
Section 11 of the Ordinance, 2025, provides that the
Government may, by notification in the official Gazzette,
establish as many Tribunals as it considers necessary to
exercise jurisdiction under the Ordinance.
- A bare reading of Sections 7, 8, and 10 of the
Ordinance, 2025 makes it evident that the Dispute
Resolution Committee (DRC) is conceived as a preadjudicatory, fact-finding, and facilitative body rather than
an adjudicatory or enforcement authority. Under Section 7,
a complaint filed by the owner or title holder of an
immoveable property before the Deputy Commissioner is
entrusted to the DRC, which indicates that the Committee
serves as the first forum to examine allegations of illegal
possession. Section 8(2) empowers the DRC to scrutinize
the relevant record, provide hearing to all concerned,
summon persons, inquire into the matter, encourage
amicable settlement, and take administrative measures to
safeguard ownership rights, subject to consistency with the
law for the time being in force. These powers are
investigative and conciliatory in nature and do not include
the authority to order eviction, dispossession, or delivery of
possession. Section 10 further clarifies the role of the DRC
by providing that where a dispute is resolved, the
Committee shall reduce the settlement into writing and
W.P. No.15267 of 2025.
7
transmit the same to the Tribunal for approval and for
passing a judgment and decree thereupon, and where
resolution fails, the matter along with the Committee’s
opinion is to be referred to the Tribunal for final decision.
The scheme of the Ordinance, therefore, clearly
demonstrates that the Tribunal alone is vested with
adjudicatory jurisdiction, while the DRC functions as an
intermediary mechanism responsible for collecting material,
conducting inquiry, facilitating resolution, and transmitting
the record and its opinion to the Tribunal. Consequently, the
DRC cannot be treated as an executing or enforcement
agency, and any direction for eviction or forcible
dispossession at its behest would be alien to the scheme of
the Ordinance and contrary to due process of law.
- As far as Section 9 of the Ordinance, 2025, is
concerned, bare reading of said Section reflects that it
provides limited and non-adjudicatory role assigned to the
Dispute Resolution Committee. Section 9 is expressly
couched in preventive terms and is triggered only where an
owner or title holder merely apprehends the commission of
an offence under the Ordinance. Even in such
circumstances, the jurisdiction of the DRC remains
confined to examining the record, hearing the concerned
parties, and passing such preventive orders as it may deem
fit and appropriate. Significantly, the measures
contemplated under Section 9(2), such as obtaining
No.15267 of 2025.
8
reasonable and adequate surety or guarantee from the party
concerned or sealing of the property, are temporary,
precautionary, and regulatory in nature, aimed at preventing
further illegality.
Section 16 of the Ordinance, 2025, lays down
procedure to be followed by the Tribunal, which reads as
under:-
- Procedure of the Tribunal (1) The Tribunal shall,
upon referral of the matter by the concerned
Committee, take cognizance of it and try every case
arising out of any alleged offence with respect to the
ownership and title to, or possession of immoveable
property occupied illegally, whether before or after the
commencement of the Ordinance, and pass such orders
as it deems fit.
(2)
Notwithstanding anything contained in
the Ordinance or any law for the time being in
force, the Tribunal shall also have exclusive
jurisdiction to determine the question of title, if
any, of the immoveable property under reference
and for the purpose, may, for reasons to be
recorded in writing, follow such summary
procedure as it deems appropriate.
(3)
The Tribunal shall try the offences under
the Ordinance in accordance with the procedure
provided under Chapter XXIIA of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1898 (V of 1898).
(4)
Notwithstanding anything contained in
sub-section (3) or in any other law for the time
being in force, the Tribunal may, for reasons to be
recorded in writing, dispense with any provision of
the Code of Criminal Procedure. 1898 (V of 1898)
and follow such procedure as it may deem fit in the
circumstances of the case.
(5)
Every case shall be proceeded on dayto-day basis and shall be decided by the Tribunal
W.P. No.15267 of 2025.
9
within a period of ninety days from the date of its
receipt by the Tribunal.
(6)
The Tribunal may award monetary
compensation for wrongful and illegal possession
of immovable property which shall not be less than
the value of the immovable property so possessed,
as determined in accordance with the valuation
table notified under the Stamp Act 1899 (II of
1899), as on the date of the order and in addition
thereto, the Tribunal may order payment of any
profit or gain accrued from such property or any
superstructure constructed thereupon, by the
offender to the lawful owner, and may further
direct restoration of possession of the Immovable
property to its lawful owner.
(7)
The amount of compensation and profit,
so awarded and cost of restoration of possession, if
any, shall be recovered as arrears of land revenue.
(8)
The Tribunal may, at any stage of the
case, order the arrest of a person for an offence
under the Ordinance, through police or an agency
or authority of the Government.
(9)
Upon transfer of a case under subsection (6) of section 8, the Tribunal shall proceed
in the case as provided under this section and it
shall not be necessary for it to re-examine any
witness or record any evidence that has already
been recorded; however, the Tribunal may refer
such case to the Committee for resolution of the
matter or for its opinion and the Committee shall,
thereafter, proceed in accordance with section 8.
(10)
Upon conclusion of the trial, the
Tribunal, while deciding the title or ownership of
the Immovable property, shall pronounce a
judgment and pass a decree accordingly.
Section 17 of the Ordinance, 2025, provides
mechanism for eviction and mode of recovery as an interim
relief which reads as under:-
W.P. No.15267 of 2025.
10
- Eviction and mode of recovery as an interim
relief.- (1) The Tribunal may, at any stage of the case,
regulate the possession of immovable property and
issue such interim orders as it deems appropriate.
(2) For the purpose of securing compliance with an
order made under sub-section (1), the Tribunal may
authorize any officer, official, or authority of the
Government to take possession of the property, and the
officer, official or authority so authorized may use, or
cause to be used, such force as may be necessary for
giving effect to the order.
- In the light of the above statutory scheme, it is
manifest that the authority to regulate possession of
immoveable property, including restoration of possession as
an interim arrangement, vests exclusively in the Tribunal
and not in the Dispute Resolution Committee (DRC). The
powers conferred upon the DRC under Sections 7 and 8 of
the Ordinance, 2025, are confined to receiving complaints,
scrutinizing record, providing hearing to the parties,
conducting inquiry, encouraging amicable settlement, and
taking such administrative measures as are consistent with
the law for safeguarding ownership rights. These provisions
do not authorize the DRC to pass any coercive or executory
orders, nor do they empower it to direct eviction,
dispossession, or restoration of possession, whether on a
temporary or permanent basis.
- On the contrary, Sections 10, 11, 16, and 17 of the
Ordinance clearly demarcate the adjudicatory and
enforcement jurisdiction of the Tribunal. Section 10
W.P. No.15267 of 2025.
11
requires the DRC, whether upon successful resolution or
failure thereof, to transmit the matter along with its opinion
to the Tribunal for approval or final decision. Section 16
expressly vests the Tribunal with jurisdiction to try cases
arising out of alleged offences under the Ordinance,
determine questions of title, ownership, or possession, and
pass such orders as it deems fit, including directions for
restoration of possession and award of compensation. More
importantly, Section 17 specifically empowers the Tribunal,
at any stage of the proceedings, to regulate possession of
the immoveable property and to issue interim orders,
including authorization to any government officer or
authority to take possession of the property and to use such
force as may be necessary to give effect to its orders.
- The express conferment of interim powers upon the
Tribunal under Section 17, coupled with the absence of any
such provision in respect of the DRC, leaves no ambiguity
that restoration of possession, even as an interim measure,
falls strictly within the exclusive domain of the Tribunal.
The DRC’s role remains limited to a pre-adjudicatory
process of inquiry, facilitation, and recommendation,
whereas coercive measures affecting possession and
enforcement can only be undertaken pursuant to an order
passed by the Tribunal in accordance with due process of
law. Consequently, any attempt by the DRC or its members
to restore possession or direct dispossession as an interim
W.P. No.15267 of 2025.
12
arrangement would be without lawful authority, alien to the
scheme of the Ordinance, and contrary to the principles of
due process.
- In view of the foregoing discussion and the statutory
scheme of the Punjab Protection of Ownership of
Immoveable Property Ordinance, 2025, it is held that the
Dispute Resolution Committee (DRC) has no authority to
order eviction, dispossession, or restoration of possession,
whether as an interim or final measure, and is required to
act strictly within the parameters laid down in Sections 7, 8,
and 10 of the Ordinance. Any coercive or executory action
affecting possession can only be undertaken pursuant to an
order passed by the competent Tribunal in accordance with
Sections 16 and 17 of the Ordinance and after following due
process of law.
- Even the authority conferred upon the Dispute
Resolution Committee under Section 9 of the Ordinance,
2025, is strictly circumscribed and limited to the taking of
preventive measures. Such jurisdiction can be invoked only
upon a formal application by an aggrieved owner or title
holder who apprehends the commission of an offence under
the Ordinance. The exercise of this preventive jurisdiction
is neither automatic nor unfettered; rather, it must be
preceded by due consideration of the relevant record and
affording an opportunity of hearing to the concerned
parties. Moreover, the DRC is not empowered to act
W.P. No.15267 of 2025.
13
arbitrarily, informally, or through oral or verbal directions.
Any order passed under Section 9 must necessarily be a
speaking order in writing, clearly setting out the reasons and
justification for adopting preventive measures such as
obtaining reasonable and adequate surety or guarantee from
the concerned party or ordering the sealing of the property.
- Furthermore, the authority to take preventive
measures is not to be exercised liberally or mechanically in
every case merely because an application has been filed.
Rather, such power is to be exercised sparingly and only in
cases where the facts and circumstances genuinely warrant
preventive intervention to avert imminent illegality or
irreparable harm. The DRC is duty-bound to record detailed
reasons and to specifically identify and describe the factors
and circumstances, which necessitate the adoption of
preventive measures.
- The measures contemplated under Section 9 are, by
their very nature, temporary, precautionary, and regulatory,
intended solely to prevent further illegality or escalation of
the dispute during the pendency of proceedings. They do
not amount to a final determination of rights, adjudication
of title, or execution of possession. The ultimate authority
to finally adjudicate the dispute, determine legal rights, and
pass enforceable orders or decrees squarely vests with the
Tribunal alone. Any interpretation or practice that expands
the preventive jurisdiction of the DRC beyond these limits
W.P. No.15267 of 2025.
14
would not only be contrary to the express language of
Section 9 but would also undermine the statutory scheme of
the Ordinance and offend the principles of due process of
law.
- It is further imperative that while exercising
jurisdiction under Section 9, the DRC must take due notice
of, and strictly respect, any subsisting status-quo order
passed by a competent court of law. No preventive order
shall be passed in disregard of, or in conflict with, such
judicial directions, as doing so would amount to
encroachment upon judicial authority and a violation of the
doctrine of comity between courts and statutory forums.
Any preventive measure must, therefore, be consistent with
and subject to the orders of the competent court, ensuring
adherence to the rule of law and maintaining the sanctity of
judicial proceedings.
- As a corollary of above discussion, this constitutional
petition is disposed of with the direction that the Dispute
Resolution Committee, including respondent No.3, shall
remain within the sphere of authority conferred upon it
under the Ordinance, 2025, and shall deal with the
application filed by respondent No.5 strictly in accordance
with law while duly taking into account the observations
made hereinabove. The DRC shall afford proper
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and all other
concerned parties, scrutinize the relevant record, and
W.P. No.15267 of 2025.
15
proceed in a fair, transparent, and non-coercive manner. It is
further directed that no coercive measures, including
eviction or forcible dispossession, shall be taken against the
petitioner except in pursuance of a lawful order passed by
the competent Tribunal.
(AHMAD NADEEM ARSHAD)
JUDGE
APPROVED FOR REPORTING.
JUDGE
No comments:
Post a Comment