Repeal of pre-emption rights does not abate proceedings concluded by sale deed execution prior to the statutory amendment.

The Appellant filed a pre-emption application under Section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 ("Ceiling Act"), claiming a right as an adjoining raiyat over land purchased by Respondent No. 1

The Deputy Collector Land Reforms (DCLR) allowed the application on 19.04.2017

Following the dismissal of an appeal by the Collector, a sale deed was executed in favor of the Appellant through the court process on 08.09.2018

While a revision was pending before the Divisional Commissioner, the Bihar Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 2019 was enacted, repealing Section 16(3) and providing for the abatement of all pending proceedings

The Commissioner dropped the revision as abated

The Bihar Land Tribunal (BLT) later held that the completed sale and mutation in favor of the pre-emptor remained valid

However, a Single Judge of the High Court set aside the BLT order, labeling the DCLR's actions in allowing the withdrawal of funds as illegal

This intra-court appeal was filed against the Single Judge’s judgment.

The Court applied Section 16(3) (repealed) and Section 16(4)(i) & (ii) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) (Amendment) Act, 2019, which dictates that pending pre-emption cases shall be deemed abated and purchase money refunded

The Court relied on the Division Bench precedent in Sudhakar Jha v. The State of Bihar and Ors. (2024 (3) PLJR 409), which upheld the constitutional validity of the 2019 Amendment but clarified that the repeal does not affect concluded proceedings

The Court also invoked the principle that technicalities or procedural requirements must not defeat substantive justice

The Court observed that the sale deed was executed on 08.09.2018, nearly five months before the Amendment Act, 2019 came into force on 25.02.2019

It determined that while Section 16(4) abates "pending" proceedings, it does not nullify proceedings that reached finality through the execution of a sale deed and subsequent mutation

The Court found that the Single Judge erred in focusing on the DCLR’s procedural handling of the funds while overlooking the fact that the right had already vested in the Appellant

Crucially, the Court noted that Respondent No. 1 (the purchaser) had voluntarily withdrawn the consideration money and 10% interest from the DCLR, effectively accepting the court-mandated sale

Consequently, the Court reasoned that there was no remaining lis to be adjudicated between the parties

It held that since the sale deed was executed prior to the repeal and the original purchaser had withdrawn the consideration amount without objection, the dispute must be given a quietus

The pre-emption in favor of the Appellant was effectively upheld.