SRINAGAR: The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has upheld the dismissal of a suit seeking enforcement of a right of prior purchase over a parcel of land in Budgam, ruling that the claim could not survive after the repeal of the Jammu and Kashmir Right to Prior Purchase Act under the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019.
Justice Sanjay Dhar delivered the judgment on April 8, 2026, dismissing a Regular First Appeal (RFA No. 110/2025) filed by the legal representatives of Mst Jana, who had challenged a judgment and decree dated August 7, 2025, passed by the Principal District Judge, Budgam. The trial court had dismissed the original suit seeking a decree of right to prior purchase, possession and injunction.
According to court records, Mst Jana had filed a suit under the Jammu and Kashmir Right to Prior Purchase Act seeking enforcement of her alleged right of prior purchase in respect of land measuring one kanal and one marla falling under Khasra No. 1097-min at village Buzgoo Lashikallan in Chadoora tehsil. The respondents, including Assadullah Raina and others, were impleaded as defendants in the case.
During the pendency of the suit, the Right to Prior Purchase Act was repealed following the enactment of the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019. Relying on an earlier High Court judgment in Mohammad Jamal Parray vs Ghulam Qadir Mir and Others decided on July 24, 2024, the trial court dismissed the suit.
Before the High Court, counsel for the appellants, NA Kuchai, argued that the right of pre-emption is a settled and enforceable right under Muslim Personal Law and, therefore, the suit could not have been dismissed merely because of the repeal of the statute. The appellants also contended that the judgment in Mohammad Jamal Parray did not correctly state the law. The respondents were represented by advocates Malik Fahad-ul-Haq and Salfi Izhar.
Rejecting the contention, Justice Dhar observed that the plaintiff had specifically founded her claim on the provisions of the Jammu and Kashmir Right to Prior Purchase Act. The court noted that the pleadings and title of the suit clearly showed that the relief sought was based entirely on the statutory provisions of the repealed law.
The High Court further held that Muslim Personal Law in India applies only to matters relating to marriage and inheritance and cannot be invoked to claim a right of prior purchase. The court described the appellants’ argument on this point as “wholly misconceived”.
Justice Dhar also relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Punyadeo Sharma and Others vs Kamla Devi and Others (2022 LiveLaw SC 22), which held that a pre-emptor must possess the right of pre-emption not only on the date of sale and filing of the suit but also on the date of the decree passed by the trial court. If that right ceases to exist before the decree is passed, the claim must fail.
Applying that principle to the present case, the court observed that the plaintiff’s statutory right of pre-emption stood abolished before the trial court could pass a decree because the legislation itself had been repealed. As a result, the suit was bound to fail.
Finding no infirmity in the judgment of the Principal District Judge, Budgam, the High Court dismissed the appeal along with the connected application, holding that it lacked merit.
