Ashutosh Kumar, J. – Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. The challenge in the present appeal is to the order dated 15.02.2019 passed by a learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 2706 of 2019, whereby the plea of the appellant/purchaser has been rejected and the order passed by the Bihar Land Tribunal (B.L.T.) has been affirmed.

3. The appellant/purchaser had purchased 9.50 decimals of land of Plot (Khesra) No. 144 of Khata No. 10 in the district of Vaishali through sale-deed dated 31.03.2009 executed by Respondent No. 6.

4. The Respondent No. 5 sought to pre-empt such sale by filing an application under Section 16 (3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (in short the Bihar Act of 1961) in the manner prescribed therein. His claim was resisted by the appellant on the ground that the transferred land was not an agricultural land and that it had been purchased for construction of a residential house.

5. However, the claim of pre-emption was allowed by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms by order dated 13.03.2020 passed in L.C. Case No. 2 of 2009. The vendor of the property, viz., the Respondent No. 6 was asked to transfer the land in favour of Respondent No. 5 on the terms and conditions contained in the saledeed.

6. Against the afore-noted order of the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, an appeal was preferred by the appellant/purchaser vide L.C. Appeal No. 127 of 2009-10 upon 144 of 2011-12. The order passed by the first authority was affirmed and the appeal was dismissed.

7. The appellant/purchaser, thereafter, preferred a revision before the Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur vide Ceiling Pre-emption Revision Case No. 155 of 2011, which was allowed by order dated 03.02.2015. Consequently, the Respondent No. 5/pre-emptor approached the Bihar Land Tribunal (B.L.T.) vide B.L.T. Case No. 364 of 2016 against the afore-noted revisional order.

8. The Bihar Land Tribunal (B.L.T.) upheld the right of pre-emption by setting-aside the order passed in revision and restoring the orders passed by the first authority as well as the appellate authority.

9. This is how the matter has travelled at the instance of the appellant/purchaser to the High Court.

10. The learned Single Judge, vide his order impugned, affirmed the order passed by the Bihar Land Tribunal (B.L.T.), upholding the claim of pre-emption.

11. Hence, the present appeal.

12. We have noticed that the order impugned was passed on 15.02.2019, i.e., before the law of preemption was changed and the provisions contained in Section 16 (3) of the Bihar Act of 1961 was repealed by the Bihar Amending Act, 2019, w.e.f., 25.02.2019.

13. However, for all practical purposes, the LPA Bench would also be included in the expression “all other Courts” occurring in Section 16 (4) of the amended Act of 1961.

14. For the afore-noted reason, we declare the proceeding to have abated.

15. However, what appears from the pleadings is that before the matter was taken by the appellant/purchaser to the revisional Court of the Commissioner, in compliance of the orders passed by the first and the second authority, the land in question was re-conveyed/transferred to Respondent No. 5.

16. The appellant/purchaser, however, contends that the provisions contained in Section 16 (4) (i) & (ii) of the Bihar Act of 1961 shall operate with fullforce and the purchaser shall have the right over the land vended as immediately after the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge and during the pendency of this appeal, Section 16 (3), providing for pre-emption to a co-sharer and an adjoining raiyat had been repealed and it was declared that all proceedings pending before any Court shall stand abated.

17. With respect to the contention of Respondent No. 5 that the land vended had already stood transferred in his name, thereby proceedings having been brought to a logical conclusion, was not correct as the re-conveyance had to be made by the purchaser and not by an authori