Ashutosh Kumar, J. – Heard Mr. Siya Ram Shahi, the learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Prashant Kumar assisted by Mr. Harsh Anuj, the learned Advocates for respondent no. 10.

2. The challenge in this appeal is to the Judgment and Order dated 25.04.2019 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 8194 of 2019, whereby the claim of the appellant / purchaser was rejected by the learned Single Judge, notwithstanding the Court having noticed the fact that Section 16 (3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter after called the Bihar Act of 1961) which provided the right of pre-emption, stood repealed on 25.02.2019 by virtue of Bihar Amendment Act 6 of 2019 and the proceeding abated.

3. It appears from the records that out of a total area of 2.24 acres of land appertaining to Khata No. 70, Plot No. 3566 situated at Mauza – Mukhrawan, Block – Nuwan in the district of Kaimur, which is the subject matter of pre-emption proceeding, the appellant/purchaser had bought half of the land admeasuring 1.12 acres and the rest 1.12 acres was purchased by his brother who was residing with the appellant / purchaser.

4. Within time, after the registration of the sale deed, pre-emption application was filed by respondent no. 10, which was allowed.

5. The appellant / purchaser challenged the aforesaid order before the Collector and succeeded in repelling the claim of pre-emption. The case of the appellant / purchaser was allowed by the Appellate Authority / Collector on 11.08.2010.

6. The respondent no. 10, thereafter, preferred a revision petition before the Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna, which was dismissed on 21.11.2017.

7. Assailing the afore-noted orders, respondent no. 10 preferred an application before the Bihar Land Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as “BLT”), which allowed the claim of respondent no. 10 / pre-emptor on 19.12.2018.

8. Against the aforesaid order, the appellant / purchaser had come to this Court vide C.W.J.C. No. 8194 of 2019.

9. The submissions on behalf of the appellant / purchaser, on merit of the case was that the vendors/transferors (respondent nos. 6 to 9 before the writ court) had approached the respondent no. 10 with the offer to sell the plot but when such offer was declined, the land was sold to the purchasers.

10. The learned Single Judge found that the B.L.T. rejected such claim for the paucity of any cogent evidence in that regard. The vendors/transferors of the property did not even appear before the Tribunal. The contention of the appellant/ purchaser that he also had become an adjoining raiyat because of purchase of the adjoining plot of land was also rejected. The learned Single Judge, relying wholly on the finding of the Tribunal, found that the right of the pre-emptor had already crystallized upto the stage of the B.L.T. and, therefore, the issued could not be unsettled, notwithstanding the repeal of Section 16(3) of Bihar Act of 1961 and insertion of Section 16(4)(i) and (ii) of the Act. Such amended Act, the learned Single Judge declared, would not affect concluded proceedings.

11. We are in respectful disagreement with the learned Single Judge for his having declared so. The case was pending before the High Court, (the pendency of the writ petition against the order of the B.L.T., where the pre-emptor/respondent had won the case). During the pendency of the writ petition, by virture of Bihar Amendment Act 6 of 2019, Section 16 (3) of the Bihar Act of 1961 was repealed and Section 16 (4)(i) and (ii) was inserted. Section 16(4) categorically held that if the case or proceeding is pending at any court or tribunal, it shall abate.

12. In Punyadeo Sharma & Ors. Etc. vs. Kamla Devi & Ors. Etc.; 2022 (1) BLJ 434, the expression any other Court occurring in section 16(4) of the Bihar Act of 1961 was held to include constitutional Courts also, namely, High Court and Supreme Court.

13. Thus, we are of the view that in the absence of any averment that after the order pa