Ashutosh Kumar, J. – Heard Mr. Saurendra Pandey, the learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Mukesh Kumar Jha, the learned Advocate for the respondent nos. 5, 6 and 8.

2. The respondent no. 7 is dead.

3. Here is an illustrious case, where, because of the operation of law, the appellant/purchaser perforce succeeds only for the reason of delay in re-conveyance of the title in favour of the pre-emptor/respondent.

4. The appellant had purchased the property in question by a registered sale deed dated 18.10.1994. Shortly thereafter, a pre-emption application was filed by respondent nos. 5, 6 and 7 ( respondent no. 7 died during the pendency of this appeal) but without depositing of the sale price plus 10 percent thereof within time. The amount was deposited only on 22.03.1995 belatedly.

5. Mr. Pandey, the learned advocate for the appellant contends that in the first instance, the preemption proceeding ought not to have been triggered, for all conditions had to be satisfied before initiating such proceeding. Nonetheless, the pre-emption was entertained, but was ultimately dismissed on 16.08.1995.

6. Against the afore-mentioned order rejecting the claim of pre-emption, the pre-emptors/respondents preferred an appeal before the Collector, which was allowed on 28.5.1997.

7. After the pre-emption application was allowed in appeal, an application was filed before the L.R.D.C. for directing the appellant/purchaser to re-convey the property to them.

8. The proceedings remained pending, whereafter a revision petition was filed by the appellant / purchaser before the Board of Revenue vide Revision Petition No. 19 of 2002, which was dismissed for non-prosecution by order dated 21.10.2003.

9. Against the aforenoted order of dismissal of the revision petition, the appellant / purchaser preferred a writ petition before this Court vide C.W.J.C. No. 22063 of 2011, which also has been dismissed by the order impugned on grounds of laches.

10. The learned Single Judge vide his order dated 01.08.2019 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 22063 of 2011 has held that the writ petition by the purchaser could not be entertained as it was filed more than eight years after the passing of the order in revision, when the claim was dismissed for non-prosecution.

11. During the pendency of the writ petition, 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of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961(hereinafter after called the Bihar Act of 1961) was repealed and Section 16(4) (i) (ii) was inserted.

12. Admittedly, the property has not been reconveyed to the pre-emptors/respondents herein by the appellant. There could be laches on the part of the appellant and the delay at the level of the First Authority in executing the order passed in appeal, affirming the right of pre-emption by resorting to Order 21 Rule 34 C.P.C. but notwithstanding the aforesaid, for this fact alone, the weak right of preemption would have to go in favour of the purchaser / appellant.

13. In order to appreciate the afore-noted reasoning, it would be profitable to refer to the 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 contained in the said deed:

Provided that no such application shall be entertained by the Collector unless the purchase money together with a sum equal to ten percent thereof is deposited in the prescribed manner within the said period.

(ii) On such deposit being made, t