A right of pre-emption accrued prior to an amendment in the law cannot be defeated by the subsequent amendment, and the rights and obligations of the parties to a legal proceeding must be decided in accordance with the law that was in force at the time of filing of the legal proceeding.

1. In this revisional application the petitioner challenges the judgment and order dated 7th February, 2007 passed by the Ld. Additional District Judge, 1st Court at Bankura in Misc. Appeal No. 7 of 2005 reversing the judgment and order dated 19th March, 2005 passed by the Court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1st Court, Bankura in J. Misc. No. 8 of 1998. The Trial Court had allowed the petitioner s application for pre-emption under Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act. The First Appellate Court reversed the decision of the Trial Court.

2. The petitioner is the owner of plot No. 20/8161. The owner of the adjacent plot of land being plot No. 20/6413 was one Gobindalal Chattopadhyay. Gobindalal sold his said plot to the opposite parties by executing a sale deed dated 14th July, 1997. The sale deed was registered on 16th January, 1998.

3. On or about 7th April, 1998 the petitioner made an application under Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1st Court, Bankura being J. Misc. No. 8 of 1998 for pre-empting the aforesaid sale of plot No. 20/6413. The petitioner asserted his right of pre-emption on the basis of vicinage as also on the basis of being a co-sharer of the original plot No. 20.

4. During the pendency of the pre-emption application before the Trial Court the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 2000 came into force whereby the word holding was substituted by the word plot in, inter alia, Section 8 of the 1956 Act. The opposite parties argued that since the entirety of plot No. 20/6413 has been sold by Gobindalal, in view of the amendment, Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act no longer applied. However, it was argued on behalf of the petitioner that when the substantive law is altered during the pendency of an action, the right of the parties are decided according to the law as it existed at the time of institution of the action.

5. The Ld. Trial Court found that the suit land was adjacent to the petitioner s land. The suit land constituted only a part of the holding of Gobindalal who owned land also in Calcutta and, hence, Gobindalal had not transferred the entirety of his holding. The Ld. Trial Court also held that there was no partition by metes and bounds between the suit land and the petitioner s land being the Kha schedule property and Ka schedule property respectively and as such, the petitioner is a co-sharer in respect of the suit land. Accordingly both on the ground of vicinage and co-sharership the Ld. Trial Court allowed the petitioner s pre-emption application.

6. Being aggrieved the opposite parties preferred an appeal before the Additional District Judge, 1st Court, Bankura being Misc. Appeal No. 7 of 2005.

7. The Ld. 1st Appellate Court held that the 2000 amendment to the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1956 and in particular Section 8 thereof took effect from 7th August, 1969 and as such, the Ld. Trial Court should have considered the amended provision of Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act. Going by the amended provision of Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, Gobindalal transferred the entirety of his plot No. 20/6413 and, as such, Section 8 of the 1955 Act would not be attracted. The Appellate Court also held that the suit plot had been carved out from original plot No. 20, was demarcated and was in exclusive possession of the owner thereof and, as such, the petitioner s claim of co-sharership could not be sustained. The lower Appellate Court, accordingly, allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Ld. Trial Judge. Being aggrieved, the petitioner is before this court by way of the instant revisional application.

8. None appears to oppose this application in spite of notice.

9. Appearing on behalf of the petitioner Mr. Bhattacharjee, Ld. Senior Counsel contended that as on the date of the institution of the pre-emption application, there was no amendment to Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act. Although th