Law: Azad Jammu and Kashmir Right of Prior Purchase Act, 1993

Section:

Right of Prior Purchase Act, 1933(B. R.)  PreemptionSuit forPreemptor granted decree for land in dis puteAppeal by vendor against such decreeGovernment during pen dency of appeal before High Court, by notification taking away right of prior purchase from municipal limits of town where disputed land situateHeld, such notification does not affect adversely right of pre emptor created under such decree.[PreemptionNotification]. The appeal is a continuation of the suit and the whole case reopens at the appellate stage but, by filing the appeal the vestes right accrued to the oppositeparty by virtue of a decree does not become sub judice. It incorrect that any legislative change even during the pendency of .an appeal shall have to be taken into the consideration. But here in this case the change by virtue of the notification taking away' the right of prior purchase was not retrospective nature and cannot be said ;o have deprived a person of a vested right. Ordinarily a notification issued under statutory powers should be deemed to come into effect on the date when it is published arid not from any earlier date. It is wellrecognized rule of construction that retroacti vity is not to be given to a statute so as to impair an existing right or obli gation, unless the effect cannot be avoided without doing violence to the lan guage of the enactment, The position of a decreeholder therefore in a preemption suit in that his vested right i. right to sue become incorporated on a decree and his position on appeal is that of one who is defending his decree and not enforcing a owner immediately on unless fault be found with the decree itself be withheld because of the notification. How ever, suit been dismissed the Government notification issued away the right of preemption. The law is now practically settled essential for the preemptor to retain his right of preemption till the date of the decree of the first Court. Notification issued after a decree has been passed by the trial Court in favour of a person does not deprive the preemptor of his vested right in corporated in the decree because the notification in question would affect only those suits in which the…