LHC extends stay on auction of Jaranwala shops

The petitioners, represented by Ch Shoaib Saleem Advocate, argued that the Member Colonies had misinterpreted the law by not applying the Punjab Local Government Act 2022 to leases involving provincial government property. The counsel submitted that the petitioners had entered into lease agreements with the authorities after proper assessment and determination of the rents.

He said the shopkeepers had been running their businesses from the premises for several decades and had regularly paid rent, which in some cases was higher than the reserved rents fixed by the authorities for the proposed auction.

He further argued that the petitioners had constructed the shops at their own expense and deposited Rs500,000 each as security with the respective municipal committees. The counsel contended that after accepting rent from the petitioners for years under the existing lease agreements, the authorities could not simply deny the validity of those agreements.

He also referred to Article 114 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, regarding the legal effect of admissions and conduct. During the hearing, the government law officer sought additional time to submit replies, arguing that the petitions involved different categories and that categorising them would help the government prepare responses in similar cases.

Justice Ahmad Nadeem Arshad observed that there was no need to categorise the cases, adding that the court would hear all the petitioners and ensure that everyone was dealt with in accordance with the law. The court subsequently extended the existing stay order in favour of the petitioners and adjourned the proceedings until October 2026.

Earlier, a divisional bench headed by Justice Waqar Haider Awan had also restrained the authorities from proceeding with the auction while hearing an intra-court appeal concerning the same dispute.

The divisional bench had referred the matter to the Deputy Commissioner Faisalabad to reconsider why the government intended to auction the shops despite the existing lease agreements, particularly when the petitioners were already paying rents higher than the proposed reserved rents for the auction. The Deputy Commissioner had appeared before the court in person in connection with the matter.