By Court In an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution the petitioner prays for quashing annexure 3'. By virtue of annexure 3' Member. Board of Revenue allowed the revision and set aside the order of the learned Additional Collector. 2. The petitioner claimed preemption under section 16 (3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act 1961 (Act 12 of 1962) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the sale deed dated 31st July, 1973 executed by respondent no.5 in favour of respondent nos.3 and4 in respect of plot nos. 584, 580 and 591 in village Chakhunda. The Member Board of Revenue held that the preemption application filed by the petitioner under section 16 (3) of the Act was not maintainable for the simple reason that in fact there was no transfer of land by virtue of the sale deed dated 31st. July 1973. In his opinion, transfer of the land in question was illegal as the transferor transferred the land in question in contravention of section 5 of the Bihar Consolidation of Holding and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 (Bihar Act No. 22 of 1956) (hereinafter referred to as the Consolidation of Holdings Act). Section 5 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act provides that no person shall transfer any land in the notified area by was of sale gift, exchange or partition without the previous sanction of the Consolidation Officer after the date of publication of preparation of register of lands and statement of principles under sub-section (1) of section 10. In the present case the admitted position is that the area in question was the notified area and respondent no. 5 transferred it after the date of publication of preparation of register of lands and statement of principles under subsection (1) of section 10 of the Consolidation Holdings Act. If it is so, respondent No, 5 acted illegally in transferring the lands namely plot nos.584, 590 and 591 in village Chakhunda without obtaining the prior sanction of the consolidation officer. Hence in our opinion the transfer is illegal Under sub-section (3) of section 16 of the Act, a transfer of the lands must be a valid and legal transfer. If there is no legal transfer of the land then a preemptor cannot apply for pre-emption under section 16 (3) of the Act. 3. Hence in our opinion the transfer is illegal Under sub-section (3) of section 16 of the Act, a transfer of the lands must be a valid and legal transfer. If there is no legal transfer of the land then a preemptor cannot apply for pre-emption under section 16 (3) of the Act. 3. Learned counsel for the vendor, namely, respondent no 5 contends before us that no consideration was passed on him by respondent nos. 3 and 4. The counsel for respondent nos. 3 and 4 also states that no consideration was paid to respondent no. 5. in respect of the impugned sale deed. Hence we hold that it was not a valid transfer as no consideration money was passed between the vendor and vendee. In view of the statement of the counsel of both the parties, it is clear that the sale deed was actually not effected between the parties and according to them that title also did not pass from respondent no.5 to respondent nos. 3 and 4. 4. The words transfer of land under section 16 (3) of the Act envisages that there must be valid and legal transfer between the parties. It the transfer is contrary to Jaw then it must be held that such transfer is void in law. In a case of illegal transfer, the application is not maintainable. 5. In the result petition is dismissed. The parties will bear their own costs. Application dismissed.