IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5826 of 2008 JIUT CHOUDHARY son of Late Ugam Choudhary resident of Village Parsouni Khas P.S.Uchhkagaon Dist. Gopalgan. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR 1A.The Member Board of Revenue, Patna 2.The Collector,Gopalganj,Bihar 3.The Deputy Collector,Land Reforms,Hathua,Gopalganj 4.Ramesh Sah son of Late Shiv Narayan Sah 5.Rabindra Sah son of Late Bachulal Sah 6.Arun Sah son of Late Hiralal Sah 7.Santosh Sah son of late Hiralal Sah 8.Kishnath Lal Sah son of Subalal “Sah 9.Hira Choudhary son of Kundan Chaudhar, all 4 to 9 resident of Village Parsauni P.S.Uchakagaon District Gopalganj. 10.Dangal Choudhary son of Late Balak Chaudhary resident of Village Parsauni Khas P.S.Uchkagaon Dist.Gopalganj ----------- 2 16.4.2009. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the State. This application has been filed for setting aside the order dated 24.5.2006 passed by Addl. Member Board of Revenue, Bihar, in Revision case no.111 of 2002. By the impugned order it has been held that since there was no valid transfer of the right and title with respect to the pre-empted land on account of non payment of the consideration money, the pre-emption application is not maintainable. Petitioner is the pre-emptor. A sale deed was executed in favour of respondent no.9 by ancestors of respondent nos.4,5,6,7 and 8. Respondent no.10 is second purchaser from respondent nos.4 to 8. Petitioner is claiming to be the adjacent raiyat and co-sharer. He filed an application under Section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus land) Act for exercising the right of pre-emption. After filing of the pre-emption application the vendor filed Title suit no.71 of 2 2000 for declaring the sale deed null and void as title did not pass to the purchaser on account of non payment of consideration money and also because the physical possession of the land was not handed over to the purchaser. The purchaser appeared and filed a petition of compromise stating that a decree be passed in terms of compromise showing his enability to pay the consideration amount. The sale deed was declared null and void, and compromise decree was passed. Considering all these aspect the D.C.L.R. Hathua, Gopalganj by order dated 21.6.2001 dismissed the pre-emption application. The petitioner moved before the Collector, Gopalganj by filing an appeal which was allowed. Against the appellate order the purchaser moved before Member Board of Revenue by filing Rev. Case no.111 of 2002 which has been dismissed by the impugned order. I do not find any error in the order passed by the revisional authority considering the fact that the sale deed was incomplete and sale deed declared null and void since sale was not complete, any application for pre-emption was not maintainable. Such applications are maintainable only when title completely passes in favour of the purchaser and sale is complete. In case of incomplete sale, pre-emption application is not maintainable. This application is dismissed. Sss/- (Mridula Mishra, J)