IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC NO.11603 OF 2010 YOGENDRA MAHTO & YOGENDRA SINGH, SON OF LATE JANKI MAHTO, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MURADPUR, BANGRA, POLICE STATION BANGRA, SUB DIVISION AND DISTRICT SAMASTIPUR VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COMMISSIONER, DARBHANGA DIVISION, DARBHANGA 3. THE COLLECTOR, SAMASTIPUR 4. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR LAND REFORMS, SAMASTIPUR 5. JAGDISH SAH, SON OF ALTE CHUNCHUN SAH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KASBE AHAR, POLICE STATION AND POST OFFICE TAJPUR, SUB DIVISION AND DISTRICT SAMASTIPUR 6. MOSMAT BIBI SAYADA, WIFE OF LATE ABDUL RAHMAN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KASBA AHAR, TOLE DARGAH, POLICE STATION AND POST OFFICE TAJPUR, SUB DIVISION AND DISTRICT SAMASTIPUR ………………………………………………………………………..RESPONDENTS ********* 2 23/07/2010 The petitioner’s pre-emption application has been rejected by all the three Courts. Respondent no. 6 Bibi Sayada executed a sale deed dated 09.07.2003 in favour of Jagdish Sah, respondent no. 5 for a consideration amount of Rs. 47,000/-. The petitioner filed a pre-emption application on 29.08.2003 before the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Samastipur which was numbered as Ceiling Case No. 13 of 2003, claiming that he is the boundary raiyat. In the mean time, Bibi Sayada, respondent no. 6 executed a deed of cancellation on 09.09.2003 and filed a suit in the Court for cancellation of the sale deed on the ground that the purchaser, respondent no. 5, had not paid the entire consideration amount. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that 2 the pre-emption application ought to have been considered and allowed as the deed of cancellation was hit by the principles of lis pendens. In the facts of this case, the principle of lis pendens would not apply as the person executing the deed has full right to cancel the deed through the process of the Court on the ground that the consideration amount was not paid by the vendee. Once, the cancellation is filed and allowed by the Court, the cause for filing the pre-emption application no longer remains and as such the petitioner cannot contend that the vendor should sell his property and execute a sale deed in his favour. If there is no valid transaction of transfer, a right to file pre-emption application would automatically cease to exist. It is not a case where the vendor had subsequently sold the property to a third party, rather it is the case that vendor had decided not to sell the property at all. In the circumstances, I do not see any reason to interfere with the orders of the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, the Collector and the Commissioner. This writ application is dismissed. Anand ( Sheema Ali Khan, J. )