Ayyaz Ahmad & 5 Others vs Punjab Property Tribunal etc.

Form No.HCJD/C-121

ORDER SHEET

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,

MULTAN.

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

Writ Petition No.10974 of 2026

Ayyaz Ahmad etc.

Versus Punjab Property Tribunal etc.

Sr.No. of Date of Order with signatures of Judge and that of parties Order/ Order/ or counsel, where necessary. Proceeding Proceeding

14.09.2026 Rana Muhammad Asif Saeed, Advocate for the petitioners.

Kanwar Sajid Ali, Assistant Advocate General, on Court’s call.

Through this Writ Petition, the petitioners have challenged the validity of an

interim/interlocutory order dated 09.09.2026, passed by the learned Judge, Punjab Property Tribunal, Dera Ghazi Khan & Taunsa Sharif under the Punjab Protection of Ownership of Immovable Property (Amendment), Act, 2026.

2.Brief facts of the case as stated by learned counsel for the petitioners are that Asia Parveen/ respondent No.6 filed a complaint against the petitioners under Section 7 of the Punjab Protection of Ownership of Immoveable Property Act, 2025 [amended through Punjab Protection of Ownership of Immoveable Property (Amendment) Act, 2026], hereinafter referred as “Act”. The learned Judge, Punjab Property Tribunal, Dera Ghazi Khan

[hereinafter referred as “Tribunal”] after obtaining report from the District Scrutiny Committee passed impugned order dated 09.09.2026 under Section 10(1) of the Act and directed the Tehsildar and SHO Police Station concerned, respondents No.4 & 5 to retrieve the possession of the said land and handover said land to respondent No.6/complainant.

Hence, this petition.

3.Arguments heard. Record perused.

4.The respondent No.6 filed a complaint under Section 7(1)(2) of the Act with the contention that she obtained the suit property through inheritance vide mutation No.6087 and partition proceedings whereof have been completed but the present petitioners illegally occupied her land. The respondent No.6 herself appeared on 18.07.2026 and made a corroborating statement in this regard before the Tribunal, who after having recorded / received evidence of the petitioner referred the matter to the Scrutiny Committee under Section 7(3) of the Act. For ready reference, Section 7(3) of the Act is reproduced as under:

“7. Filing of complaint.– (3) Within three days of the receipt of a complaint, the Tribunal shall refer it to the Committee for probe, scrutiny and encouraging and facilitating an amicable resolution thereof and submission of its report within thirty days of referral thereto.”

On receipt of complaint the District Scrutiny Committee probe the relevant documents of ownership and then make its recommendation. The Recruit Committee is constituted under Section 8 of the Act, which provision is reproduced as under:

“8. Scrutiny Committee.– (1) For each district, there shall be a Scrutiny Committee which shall consist of:

(a)Deputy Commissioner (Convener);

(b)District Police Officer;

(c)Additional Deputy Commissioner (Revenue);

(d)Assistant Commissioner concerned;

(e)Sub-Divisional Police Officer concerned;

(f)Circle Revenue Officer concerned;

(g)Officer-in-charge of the police station concerned; and

(h)an officer of any agency of the Government, to be co-opted by the Committee.

(2)For the purposes provided in sub-section (3) of section 7, the Committee may:

(a)scrutinize relevant record and afford an opportunity of hearing to the persons concerned;

(b)require attendance of any person and require such person to provide information relevant to the complaint;

(c)call for requisition and examine any record or document from any office of the Government or any public authority;

(d)record statements of persons appearing before it, through the Officer in-charge of the police station concerned; and

(e)encourage and facilitate an amicable resolution of disputes.

(3)The Officer-in-charge of the police station concerned shall be responsible for, inter alia, ensuring attendance of any person, recording of the statement of any person, seizure memos and collecting all the record.

(4)The Committee shall finalize and submit its report along with all relevant record, through the Circle Revenue Officer concerned and Officer-in-charge of the police station concerned, to the Tribunal, within thirty days from the date of referral of the complaint from the Tribunal:

Provided that the Circle Revenue Officer concerned shall be the focal person to liaise with the Tribunal throughout the proceedings, who shall

appear as a witness along with the Officer-in-charge of the police station concerned, for and on behalf of the Committee, and other Members of the Committee shall not be called as witnesses.

(5)In case, the dispute has been amicably resolved, or the parties have arrived at a compromise, the Committee shall reduce it into writing and send the same to the Tribunal for its approval and for passing of judgment and decree thereupon and restoration of possession to the lawful owner on such terms and conditions as to compensation or otherwise as may be deemed appropriate by the Tribunal.

(6)The parties shall appear before the Committee in person: Provided that if a party is unable to appear in person, the Committee may, on the written request of such party, allow appearance through electronic means subject to his biometric verification.” In the instant matter the Scrutiny Committee has submitted report declaring that the respondent No.6 is owner of the suit property which was devolved upon her through inheritance mutation No.6087 and later on partition proceedings were completed which decision was upheld by this Court. The Scrutiny Committee submitted its opinion that the respondent No.6 is prima facie real land owner and her request may be considered in respect of retrieving possession of her inherited property. On the said report, the Tribunal after hearing parties passed interim order dated 09.09.2026 and directed the concerned S.H.O who with the assistance of Revenue Circle Officer to handover the possession of the land in question to the respondent No.6.

Under Section 10 of the Act ibid, the Tribunal is competent to pass an appropriate order to regulate the possession of the property and has jurisdiction to issue direction in this regard to the concerned

officers for restoration of possession to the actual owner. For reference, Section 10 of the Act is reproduced as under:

“10. Interim relief.– (1) During pendency of the case, the Tribunal may, at any stage, pass any interim order to regulate the possession of the immovable property, and pass such other orders, as it may deem fit and appropriate.

(2)For the purposes of securing compliance with any order made under sub-section (1), the Tribunal may issue appropriate directions to the Officer-in-charge of the police station or authorize any functionary, or officer, or official, or authority of the Government.”

5.As the Tribunal has passed an interim order dated 09.09.2026 which has been challenged through this petition whereas under Section 19(1) &

(2)of the Act, the remedy of appeal is available only against the final judgment passed by the Tribunal whereas under Section 19(3) of the Act, no appeal or revision is provided against such an interim order. For ready reference, Section 19 of the Act is reproduced as under:

“Appeal.– (1) Any person convicted under the Act, the complainant, or the Public Prosecutor if so directed in writing by the Prosecutor General, Punjab, being aggrieved by the final judgment of the Tribunal including a judgment and decree passed by the Tribunal, may, within thirty days of the date of such judgment or decree, prefer an appeal to the Lahore High Court:

Provided that no appeal or revision shall lie against a judgment or a decree passed under sub- section (5) of section 8 of the Act.

(2)All appeals filed under sub-section (1) shall be heard by the benches to be constituted by the Chief Justice of the Lahore High Court, and shall be decided within a period of thirty days of their filing.

(3)No appeal or revision shall lie against an interim order or interlocutory order passed by the Tribunal.”

The sole objective of non-providing the remedy of an appeal/revision against interim/interlocutory order is to curtail the unnecessary multiplicity of litigation and to resolve such small disputes in the lis expeditiously and the right accrued under such adjudication (order/decree) should necessarily reach the decree-holder without any procrastination. As the remedy of appeal or Revision is not provided in the very statute against the interim order, then the constitutional jurisdiction is not stretchable to necessarily provide another alike remedy of an appeal or Revision rather the constitutional petition is not maintainable. Reliance in this regard is placed on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan cited as Saif-ur-Rehman Vs. Additional District Judge, Toba Tek Singh and 2 others (2018 SCMR 1885). Further, as in the matter in issue, the remedy of appeal/revision is not provided in statute with the object to make end of unnecessary delay as well as to safeguard the right of the party. Thus, jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 cannot be enlarged just to provide a forum alike that of an appellate or revisional court, as such this Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction always avoid to sit as an appellate forum and to substitute the findings of

facts recorded by the lower Court or a tribunal.

Reliance is placed on the case titled as Muhammad Rehman Vs. Mst. Fatima Bibi & Another (2010

MLD 746).

6.Furthermore, the petitioners through this petition have challenged the validity of interim order passed by the Tribunal but they have neither challenged the report of the Scrutiny Committee nor filed any objections on the said report. As such the said report has attained the status of finality and has become past and closed transaction. Reliance is placed on a case titled as Pakistan International Airlines Corporation Vs. Aziz ur Rehman Chaudhary and another (2016 SCMR 14).

7.For what has been discussed above, this Writ Petition is hereby dismissed in limine being not maintainable.

(CH. MUHAMMAD IQBAL)

JUDGE

Approved for reporting.

JUDGE

Shahzad Mahmood / Abdul Hafeez