Ashutosh Kumar, J. – Heard Mr. Parth Gaurav assisted by Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Pandey, the learned Advocates for the appellants and Mr. Ranjan Kumar Dubey, the learned Advocate for the Respondent nos. 6/ preemptors.

2. The appellants are the purchaser of the property.

3. The Respondent no. 6 had sought to pre-empt such purchase by taking resort to the necessary provision under Section 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).

4. The claim of the Respondent no. 6/ pre-emptor was repudiated by the Deputy Collector (Land Reforms) in the first instance and by the Collector, Vaishali, later, in Land Ceiling Appeal No. 135/2002.

5. The Respondent no. 6 thereafter challenged the aforenoted orders before the Divisional Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur, in revision, which petition was allowed and the claim of pre-emption of Respondent no. 6 succeeded on the ground that the question of a person being adjoining raiyat or being a pre-emptor is to be decided on the day of transfer / claim and that the purchaser had become adjoining raiyats only later i.e. after having purchased two contiguous plots.

6. The orders passed by the DCLR and the Collector in favour of the appellants / purchasers, were set aside in revision.

7. This decision by the Revisional Authority was challenged by the appellants / purchasers before the Bihar Land Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as “Tribunal”), where also the order passed by the Revisional Authority was sustained.

8. The appellants / purchasers challenged the aforenoted orders of the DCLR, Collector and the Tribunal before this Court with a plea that the right of preemption abated with the repeal of Section 16 (3) of Bihar Act of 1961.

9. The learned Single Judge, vide his order dated 22.04.2019, which has been impugned in this appeal affirmed the orders passed by the authorities perhaps only on the ground that the proceedings had culminated in favour of the pre-emptors till the stage of the Tribunal and the reasoning given by the Tribunal for sustaining the orders was ratified.

10. The learned counsel for the Appellants have taken the plea that during the pendency of the writ petition, Section 16(3) of the Bihar Act of 1961 was repealed and by the Bihar Amendment Act of 1919, all proceedings and cases before any forum stood abated.

11. In that event, the Appellants argued that the learned Single Judge ought not to have given any verdict affirming the orders passed by the authorities below but should have declared the proceedings to have abated.

12. As opposed to the aforenoted contention, the learned counsel for Respondent no. 6/ pre-emptors, however, submitted that the claim of pre-emption was allowed till the last forum of the Tribunal and, therefore, what was left to be done, namely, the reconveyance of the title by the appellants / purchasers, was only a ministerial part of the proceeding, which would not be affected by the repeal of the law of pre-emption.

13. In Smt. Manju Devi vs. the State of Bihar and Others (L.P.A. No. 1080 of 2019 arising out of C.W.J.C. No. 22063 of 2011 [: 2023 (2) BLJ 170], this Court has held as follows: –

“13. In order to appreciate the contention of the parties, it would be relevant to refer to some background developments which have taken place in the law of pre-emption.

14. Section 16 (3) of the Bihar Act, 1961, prior to its repeal, read as follows:-

16. Restriction on future acquisition by transfer, etc. –

(3) (i) When any transfer of land is made after the commencement of the Act to any person other than a co-sharer or a raiyat of adjoining land, any co-sharer of the transferor or any raiyat holding land adjoining the land transferred, shall be entitled, within three months of the date of registration of the document of transfer, to make an application before the Collector in the prescribed manner for the transfer of the land to him on the terms and conditions