Punjab Province

A Senate sub-committee has raised serious concerns over the reported establishment of 27 allegedly illegal housing societies on land belonging to Jammu and Kashmir State in Lahore, where residential plots are reportedly being sold to unsuspecting citizens. The matter came to light during a visit led by Nasir Mahmood Butt, Convener of the Senate Standing Committee on Kashmir Affairs, Gilgit-Baltistan and Frontier Regions, along with Senators Naseema Ehsan and Nadeem Bhutto. The delegation inspected state-owned properties in Sultanpura, Rehmanpura and Naulakha Bazaar to assess their legal status, management and protection.

According to an official statement, several housing societies have allegedly been developed on state-owned land without lawful authorisation, while residential buildings have also been constructed on the disputed properties. The committee expressed concern that many buyers may be unaware of the actual ownership status of the land, potentially exposing them to legal disputes, financial losses and fraudulent property transactions.

During the inspection, relevant authorities briefed the delegation on property records, administrative affairs, rental income, unauthorised occupation and encroachments. The committee stressed the need for a comprehensive investigation into the legal status of the 27 housing societies, verification of land ownership documents and examination of plot sale and purchase records to identify possible irregularities and protect the interests of affected citizens.

The committee emphasised that Jammu and Kashmir State properties are valuable state assets requiring effective protection, transparent administration and proper regulatory oversight. Members called for stronger measures to prevent illegal construction, unauthorised land transactions and further encroachments, while ensuring that citizens are protected from potential property fraud and legal complications.

The Sheikhupura Interchange on the Lahore/Islamabad Motorway (M-2) has been temporarily closed as repair crews work on a section of the northbound carriageway between kilometres 45 and 48.
Syed Imran Ahmed, spokesperson for the National Highways and Motorway Police (NHMP) Central Region, said both entry to and exit from the motorway at the interchange had been suspended during the work.

Authorities have put traffic diversions in place, though no completion time was specified in the report.
Motorists who normally use the Sheikhupura Interchange have been advised to enter or leave the M-2 through Hiran Minar Interchange instead. NHMP officers are stationed in the area to guide drivers and provide information about the alternative route.

The repair work is part of a broader maintenance activity on the motorway. An earlier NHMP travel advisory listed roadwork-related lane restrictions on the northbound carriageway between Hadiyala Virkan and Sheikhupura, around kilometres 42 to 46.

The police have urged road users to follow officers’ instructions and use the diversion until the repair work is completed. Motorists should check the latest NHMP travel advisory or call helpline 130 before travelling, as closures and diversions may change.

The Lahore High Court (LHC) has ruled that illegal occupation of government-owned land does not create any legal or ownership rights, dismissing an appeal challenging the Punjab government's decision to change the allocation scheme for 76 kanals of state land in Pakpattan district.

A two-member division bench comprising Justice Chaudhry Muhammad Iqbal and Justice Muzamil Akhtar Shabir upheld the government's authority to determine how its property should be utilised and allocated.

The six-page judgment, authored by Justice Muzamil Akhtar Shabir, was delivered on November 10, 2026, in an intra-court appeal filed by Masood Ahmed against an earlier decision of a single-member bench.

The dispute concerned the conversion of 76 kanals of government-owned land from the Temporary Cultivation Scheme to the Lambardari Grant Scheme.
The appellant challenged the government's decision, arguing that it conflicted with observations recorded in an earlier court order dated March 4, 2015.

However, the division bench rejected the argument, observing that the disputed land belonged to the provincial government and that the appellant had no legally established ownership or occupancy rights. The court held that the government, as the lawful owner of the property, possessed the authority to determine its intended use and change the applicable allocation scheme in accordance with the law.

It further observed that an unauthorised occupant could not challenge such administrative decisions merely because they affected land under his illegal possession. According to the judgment, the appellant had not denied his unauthorised occupation of the disputed property, and the findings regarding his illegal possession had remained unchallenged throughout the proceedings.

The bench also examined whether observations made in previous judicial proceedings could establish enforceable rights over government property.
It concluded that temporary or tentative observations recorded in an earlier court order did not create permanent legal entitlements or vested interests in favour of an unauthorised occupant.

The judges emphasised that constitutional relief is available to persons whose legally recognised rights have been affected, rather than individuals seeking to protect possession unsupported by law. In its detailed findings, the court stated that the appellant could not claim the status of an aggrieved person simply because the competent authorities had decided to allocate government land under a different scheme.

The division bench found no legal defect, jurisdictional error or misinterpretation of the record in the earlier decision issued by the single-member bench on April 25, 2017. Consequently, the court dismissed Masood Ahmed's intra-court appeal and maintained the government's decision to allocate the disputed land under the Lambardari Grant Scheme.

The ruling clarifies the legal distinction between physical possession and lawful entitlement to state-owned property.It also reinforces the principle that government land allocation decisions cannot be challenged solely on the basis of unauthorised occupation. The judgment provides important guidance for public land administration and disputes involving individuals occupying government property without legally established rights.