The Dispute Resolution Committee (DRC) was the body established under the original Punjab Protection of Ownership of Immovable Property Ordinance 2025 to hear and decide property complaints itself, with a 90-day extendable timeline and powers equivalent to a civil court. The Scrutiny Committee replaced it under the 2026 Amendment Ordinance and now functions differently: it investigates complaints and submits a report to the Punjab Property Tribunal within 30 days, but does not decide the case. Decision-making authority now rests entirely with the tribunal.
Understanding exactly what changed between these two bodies matters because the rights you can exercise, the timeline you can expect, and the authority that actually decides your case are all different under each framework. The Lahore High Court suspended the original 2025 law specifically over concerns about how the DRC operated, making this comparison more than academic.
Why There Were Two Different Bodies to Begin With
The Punjab Protection of Ownership of Immovable Property Ordinance was first promulgated in October 2025. It created the Dispute Resolution Committee as the primary mechanism for handling illegal land occupation cases. The idea was to keep things fast and administrative rather than routing everything through already-overburdened civil courts.
The Lahore High Court suspended the 2025 Ordinance shortly after its introduction. The concerns were structural: property decisions were being made by executive officers rather than judicial figures, due process protections were questioned, and the role of non-judicial committees in deciding questions of property title raised constitutional issues. The 2026 Amendment Ordinance was specifically designed to address those legal gaps. It replaced the DRC with a Scrutiny Committee whose job is now purely investigative, and moved final decision-making authority to a proper judicial tribunal staffed by serving judges.
Who Sat on the Dispute Resolution Committee
The original Dispute Resolution Committee was constituted in every district and chaired by the Deputy Commissioner. Its members under the 2025 Ordinance included:
- The Deputy Commissioner as Chairman
- The District Police Officer (DPO)
- The Additional Deputy Commissioner Revenue (ADCR)
- The Assistant Commissioner (AC)
- The Sub-Divisional Police Officer (SDPO)
- A co-opted government officer at the DC’s discretion
This composition was entirely executive in character. Every member of the DRC was an administrative or law enforcement official. There was no judicial figure sitting on the committee itself. The DRC had powers equivalent to a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, meaning it could summon individuals, examine records, and take measures to protect possession, but these powers rested in the hands of bureaucrats and police officials rather than judges.
Who Now Sits on the Scrutiny Committee
The 2026 Amendment replaced the DRC with a Scrutiny Committee. On the surface, the composition looks similar, but the role of the body changed fundamentally. The Scrutiny Committee under the new law includes:
- The Deputy Commissioner (DC)
- The District Police Officer (DPO)
- The Additional Deputy Commissioner Revenue (ADCR)
- The Assistant Commissioner (AC)
- The Sub-Divisional Police Officer (SDPO)
- The Circle Revenue Officer
- The Officer-in-Charge of the relevant police station
Two differences stand out immediately. First, the Circle Revenue Officer and the Officer-in-Charge of the police station have been added, giving the committee more granular operational capacity at the field level. Second, and more importantly, the Scrutiny Committee no longer decides cases. It investigates, verifies, and reports. Final authority belongs to the Punjab Property Tribunal.
The Core Difference in How Each Body Functioned
This is where the distinction matters most practically. Under the 2025 Ordinance, the DRC received complaints, conducted proceedings, and issued decisions. A property owner would file their complaint, appear before the committee, and receive a ruling from it. The committee could order eviction, protect possession, and resolve the dispute. It was the primary decision-making body.
Under the 2026 Amendment, the Scrutiny Committee has no decision-making power whatsoever. Its role is strictly to investigate. When a complaint is filed before the Punjab Property Tribunal, the tribunal forwards it to the Scrutiny Committee within 3 days. The committee then goes to the field, verifies ownership records through the Punjab Land Records Authority, assesses the ground situation, gathers evidence about the alleged illegal occupation, and submits a formal report back to the tribunal within 30 days. The tribunal then uses that report to make its judicial decision within a further 30 days.
The Scrutiny Committee feeds information into the judicial process. It does not control the outcome.
Decision-Making Then and Now
Under the old DRC system, the Deputy Commissioner and his committee colleagues were the ones who decided whether a complaint was valid, whether eviction should be ordered, and whether any protective measures should be taken. The committee also had the power to refer cases to a Property Tribunal if amicable resolution failed, but it could also try to settle the matter at its own level first.
The Property Tribunal that existed under the 2025 Ordinance was headed by a member who was a former judge of the Lahore High Court or a district judge, nominated by the Chief Justice. This tribunal handled cases that escalated from the DRC, or those where the DRC’s resolution failed.
Under the 2026 Amendment, the hierarchy is completely restructured. The Punjab Property Tribunal now receives the complaint first, not the committee. The tribunal is presided over by a serving Additional Sessions Judge rather than a retired one, which addresses one of the LHC’s concerns about the original framework. The Scrutiny Committee exists solely to support the tribunal’s investigation. There is no administrative pre-filter through which a case must pass before reaching a judge.
Timeline Comparison
The timelines are starkly different between the two systems, and the change is not just about speed. It is about legal certainty.
Under the 2025 DRC system, the committee had 90 days to resolve a complaint. This period could be extended by another 90 days with written approval from the Divisional Commissioner. That meant a case could legitimately take up to 180 days within the DRC alone, before any escalation to the tribunal. If the tribunal then handled the case, additional time was consumed at that stage, with tribunal proceedings also required to be concluded within 90 days of receipt.
Under the 2026 Scrutiny Committee system, the total timeline from filing to tribunal decision is 60 days, and it is not extendable. The tribunal forwards to the committee in 3 days. The committee reports in 30 days. The tribunal decides in 30 days. There is no mechanism in the 2026 framework for extending this period. What previously could stretch across months is now a fixed 60-day process.
Why the LHC Intervened and What Changed Because of It
The Lahore High Court’s suspension of the 2025 Ordinance rested on concerns about due process and the constitutional appropriateness of executive committees deciding property title questions. In Pakistan’s legal framework, questions of title over immovable property have traditionally fallen within the exclusive jurisdiction of civil courts. Giving that power to an administrative body chaired by a civil servant, even one equipped with civil court powers, raised serious questions about whether affected parties were receiving judicial hearing.
The 2026 Amendment responded to this directly. By stripping the Scrutiny Committee of decision-making authority and vesting it entirely in the Punjab Property Tribunal, presided over by a serving Additional Sessions Judge, the government placed a proper judicial officer at the center of every property dispute decision. The committee retained its investigative usefulness but can no longer be characterized as a non-judicial body deciding judicial questions.
For property owners, this shift means that the person deciding your case is now a sitting judge of the sessions court, accountable to the judicial hierarchy and subject to appellate review by the Lahore High Court within 30 days of the decision. Under the old DRC system, the first-level decision came from a bureaucrat. That is the most practically significant change for anyone whose land dispute ends up in this system.
What Stayed the Same
Despite the structural overhaul, several elements remained consistent between the two systems. The scope of who can be prosecuted for illegal occupation did not change: individuals, companies, partnerships, societies, trusts, and religious institutions are all covered under both frameworks. The criminal penalties for illegal possession, specifically 5 to 10 years imprisonment and fines of up to Rs10 million, were present in both the 2025 Ordinance and the 2026 Amendment. The prohibition on transferring disputed property after a complaint is filed also carried over.
The commitment to a digital process through the POIP portal at poip.punjab-zameen.gov.pk also remained. Both frameworks integrated the Punjab Land Records Authority’s digital records as the reference point for ownership verification, reducing the scope for the kind of manual record manipulation that the Patwari system historically enabled.
What This Means for Ongoing Property Disputes
If you had a complaint under the old DRC system that was affected by the LHC suspension, the 2026 Amendment’s new framework is what now governs how your case proceeds. Complaints are now routed through the tribunal first, with the Scrutiny Committee providing investigative support rather than acting as the primary adjudicator.
For anyone preparing to file a complaint about illegal occupation of their land now, the practical takeaway is this: you are dealing with a judicial tribunal backed by an investigative committee, not an administrative committee making its own decisions. Your case will be heard by a serving judge. The investigation will be conducted by a committee with real operational capacity, including police and revenue officers. And the decision will come within a legally mandated 60 days.
It is also worth knowing that the Scrutiny Committee has no authority to settle your case informally or pressure you toward a compromise outcome the way an administrative DRC theoretically could. The committee gathers facts. The judge decides based on those facts and on the law. The distinction protects property owners from administrative influence and ensures that the decision reflects the legal position rather than the preferences of local officials.
Understanding how property records and ownership are established in Punjab’s land revenue system remains important because both the old DRC and the new Scrutiny Committee depended heavily on what the official record shows. A clean, accurate Fard and a properly completed mutation are your strongest foundation regardless of which body is handling the investigation.
Frequently Asked Questions
What was the Dispute Resolution Committee under POIP 2025?
The Dispute Resolution Committee was the primary body created under the Punjab Protection of Ownership of Immovable Property Ordinance 2025 to hear and decide property possession complaints at the district level. It was chaired by the Deputy Commissioner and included the DPO, ADCR, AC, SDPO, and a co-opted officer. It had powers equivalent to a civil court and was required to resolve cases within 90 days, extendable to 180 days.
What is the Scrutiny Committee under the 2026 Amendment?
The Scrutiny Committee is the investigative body that replaced the DRC under the 2026 Amendment Ordinance. It includes the DC, DPO, ADCR, AC, SDPO, Circle Revenue Officer, and the police station Officer-in-Charge. Its sole function is to investigate complaints referred to it by the Punjab Property Tribunal and submit a report within 30 days. It has no power to decide cases.
Why was the Dispute Resolution Committee replaced?
The Lahore High Court suspended the 2025 Ordinance over concerns that an executive administrative committee was being given authority to decide questions of property title, which constitutionally belongs to the judiciary. The 2026 Amendment addressed this by moving decision-making authority to the Punjab Property Tribunal, presided over by a serving Additional Sessions Judge, while retaining the committee in a purely investigative role.
Who decides property complaints now, the Scrutiny Committee or the tribunal?
The Punjab Property Tribunal decides all property complaints. The Scrutiny Committee only investigates and reports to the tribunal. Under the 2026 framework, no administrative officer has the authority to issue a final decision on a property complaint. That authority rests exclusively with the serving Additional Sessions Judge presiding over the tribunal.
How is the timeline different between the old DRC and the new system?
Under the 2025 DRC system, a committee had up to 90 days to resolve a complaint, extendable by another 90 days, potentially stretching to 180 days before tribunal escalation. Under the 2026 Amendment, the entire process from filing to final tribunal decision is capped at 60 days: 3 days for forwarding to the committee, 30 days for the committee’s report, and 30 days for the tribunal’s final decision.
Was the composition of the committee completely different under the two laws?
The core membership was largely preserved. Both the DRC and the Scrutiny Committee included the DC, DPO, ADCR, AC, and SDPO. The 2026 Amendment added the Circle Revenue Officer and the Officer-in-Charge of the relevant police station, which expanded field-level investigative capacity. The fundamental difference was not in composition but in authority: the DRC decided cases while the Scrutiny Committee only investigates and reports.