IMPORTANT POINT
Right of pre-emption is said to be maligned law. Such rights have been characterized as feudal, archaic and outmoded.

ORDER :

1. Leave granted.

2. The challenge in the present appeals is to an order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna on 11.4.2016 whereby the intra-court appeals directed against an order of the learned Single Bench of the High Court passed on 27.7.2004 were not interfered with.

3. The appellants are purchasers of the land in question vide sale deed dated 9.2.1990. The sale deed was presented for registration but the registration was completed on 7.1.1992. The proceedings for pre-emption of the land were initiated in terms of Section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961¹ [for short the ‘Act’] on 31.3.1992.

4. The question examined by the Division Bench of the High Court was whether an application for pre-emption was filed within three months of the registration as required by Section 16(3) of the Act or was it required to be filed within three months of the day of execution of the sale deed i.e. 9.2.1990. However, the said question does not survive for consideration in view of the subsequent development whereby the right of pre-emption itself has been taken away by the Bihar Act No. 6 of 2019 when the Act was amended. The Amending Act reads thus:

“The Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) (Amendment) Act, 2019

1. Short title, Extent and Commencement:

(1) This Act may be called The Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) (Amendment) Act, 2019.

(2) It shall extend to the whole of the State of Bihar.

(3) It shall come into force immediately.

2. Amendment in Section 16 of the Act, 1961:

(1) Sub-Section (3) of Section-16 of the said Act is hereby repealed.

(2) In the Section 16 of the said Act, the following new sub-section (4) shall be added:

“(4)(i) After the repeal of sub-section (3) of Section 16 of this Act, all cases or proceedings pending before the State Government, the Board of Revenue, the Bihar Land Tribunal, the Divisional Commissioner, the Collector, the Additional Collector, the Deputy Collector Land Reforms or in any other Court, shall be deemed to be abated.

(ii) Pursuant to the repeal of sub-section (3) of Section 16 of this Act, any purchase money together with a sum equal to 10% thereof, already legally deposited shall be refunded, without any interest, to the depositor.”

5. Mr. Rakesh Kumar Khanna, learned senior counsel for the appellants argued that in terms of sub-section 4(i) inserted vide the amending act, all cases or proceedings pending before the State Government, the Board of Revenue, the Bihar Land Tribunal, the Divisional Commissioner, the Collector, the Additional Collector, the Deputy Collector Land Reforms “or in any other Court” shall be deemed to be abated. Thus, it is contended that the object of amending the Act was to abate all proceedings for preemption of the land which was pending before any forum. The expression “any other Court” will include the Constitutional Courts i.e. the High Court or the Supreme Court. Thus, if the basic right of pre-emption stands obliterated, the proceedings in appeal before this Court stands abated.

6. On the other hand, Mr. Upadhayay, learned senior counsel for the respondents argued that in terms of Section 1(3) of the Amending Act, the Act will come into force immediately i.e. on 25.2.2019. Therefore, the Amending Act will have to be read prospectively. Thus, the right of preemption will not be available only after the Amending Act came into force. Therefore, the Amending Act will not take away the right of pre-emption conferred upon the respondents. He relied upon the judgment of this Court reported as Shyam Sunder and Others vs. Ram Kumar and Another, (2001) 8 SCC 24 wherein the right of a co-sharer to pre-empt a sale has been taken away during the pendency of the appeal by Haryana Amendment Act of 1995. Such amendment was held to be prospective. The learned counsel for the respondents also relied upon a judgment of this C