Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench
Abdul Samad Bhat And Anr vs Javid Ahmad Hakak And Ors on 25 July, 2025
Author: Sanjay Dhar
Bench: Sanjay Dhar
106
Supp
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
RP No. 58/2025
In CFA No. 139/2017
Abdul Samad Bhat and anr.
..... Petitioner (s)
Through: Mr. M A Chashoo, Adv.
with Ms. Hikma Hassan, Adv.
V/s
Javid Ahmad Hakak and Ors
..... Respondent(s)
Through:
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Dhar, Judge
ORDER
25.07.2025
1. The petitioners, through the medium of present petition, have sought review of the order dated 30.06.2025 whereby this Court had declined to restore the appeal filed by the petitioners on account of the fact that the suit out of which the said appeal had arisen, had itself been rendered infructuous on account of repeal of Jammu and Kashmir Right to Prior Purchase Act.
Page |2 RP No. 58/2025 In CFA No. 139/2017
2. The petitioners, have sought review of the aforesaid order on the ground that as per table 4 of the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganization Act, 2019, Jammu and Kashmir Right to Prior Purchase Act continues to be in force. It has been further submitted that in view of the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganization Removal of Difficulties Order, 2019, the pending proceedings are saved, therefore, the order under review deserves to be set aside.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record.
4. The contention of the petitioners that the Jammu and Kashmir Right to Prior Purchase Act is still in force is factually incorrect because in terms of S.O 1229E of 2020 dated 31.03.2020, Jammu and Kashmir Reorganization Adoption of State Laws Order, 2020 which has been issued in exercise of powers conferred under Section 96 of the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganization Act, the Jammu and Kashmir Right to Prior Purchase Act stands repealed as a whole. Thus, the contention of the petitioners that the said Act is still in operation is contrary to the factual position.
Page |3 RP No. 58/2025 In CFA No. 139/2017
5. So far as the second ground urged by the review petitioners is concerned, the same is also without any substance for the reason that Clause 13 of the Removal of Difficulties Order, 2019, is not applicable to the facts of the present case. This is so because for maintaining a suit to enforce right of prior purchase, the said right has to be subsisting as on date of decree. A plaintiff in such a suit has to establish that he had right of prior purchase on the date of sale, on the date of institution of the suit and also on the date of passing of the decree. Once the preemptor loses right to preempt at any of these three stages, his suit cannot be decreed.
6. In the instant case, the suit out of which the appeal that has been dismissed for non-prosecution, arose was rendered infructuous with the repeal of J&K Right to Prior Purchase Act. It is not a case where the plaintiff had obtained a decree of preemption in his favour prior to repeal of Jammu and Kashmir Right to Prior Purchase Act but it is a case where the suit was dismissed by the trial court and appeal against the said judgment was pending before this Court at the time of repeal of the Act. Thus, the suit of the review petitioners had been rendered infructuous with Page |4 RP No. 58/2025 In CFA No. 139/2017 the repeal of Jammu and Kashmir Right to Prior Purchase Act. In this regard, reliance is placed upon the ratio laid down by this Court in case titled Mohammad Jamal Parray Vs. Ghulam Qadir Mir and Others CR No. 32/2022 decided on 24th July, 2024
7. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any ground to review order dated 30.06.2025 passed by this Court. The review petition is found to be without any merit and is accordingly dismissed.
(Sanjay Dhar) Judge SRINAGAR 25.07.2025 Aasif