JUDGMENT R.N. SAHAY J. 1. Heard Sri Ashutosh Jha learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Hare Krishna Kumar learned counsel for respondent no. 4 who is the main contesting respondent. 2. This application arises out of an application filed by the petitioner for preemption of certain land under section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961. It is not in dispute that the vendor of the land, who is respondent no. 5, in this application executed two sale deeds. One in 1978 and another in 1980. According to the case of the petitioner the first sale deed was conditional one and in this view of the matter the application for preemption was not maintainable. Hence he did not press his claim. After two years the Second sale deed was executed which was not a conditional sale deed. The petitioner filed an application for preemption within time. The application was allowed by the Land Reform Deputy Collector Vide order dated 25.2.1982 (Annexure 1) on Appeal being filed by respondent no. 4 the order of Deputy Collector Land Reforms granting preemption was set aside and the petitioner's application for preemption was dismissed. The petitioner has preferred a revision application before the Additional Member, Board of Revenue. The learned Additional Member, Board of Revenue Vide his order dated 11.5.1983 (Annexure 3) disposed of the application Passing the following orders:– 11.5.1984–Perused memo of petition along with the grounds of revision. Examined the copies of orders passed by the learned lower courts. 2. It appears to me that the learned Additional Collector has considered and given his finding, on each relevant point or issue raised in the revision petition and I do not find any merit in the petition for admission. 3. As such the petition is rejected. 3. One of the grounds taken on behalf of the petitioner is that the Additional Member, Board of Revenue has not considered crucial aspects of the matter and disposed of the revision application by a cryptic order which is not in accordance with law. There appears to be force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. 3. One of the grounds taken on behalf of the petitioner is that the Additional Member, Board of Revenue has not considered crucial aspects of the matter and disposed of the revision application by a cryptic order which is not in accordance with law. There appears to be force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order of the appellate court is illegal because the appellate court did not consider the crucial aspect of the matter involved in this case i.e. whether the petitioner could have filed an application for preemption against the first sale deed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to sub section (3) of section 16 of the Act. Sub section (3) of Section 16 of the Act, which provides that any co sharer of the transferor or any raiyat holding land adjoining the land transferred shall be entitled to make an application before the Collector. Section does not speak of any sale deed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decisions reported in 1984 PLJR 365 (Gurucharan Sardar & Ors. vs. The State of Bihar) and 1972 PLJR 321 (Kuleshwar Singh vs. Parmanand Singh) in support of his contention that if a sale deed is invalid then a preemption application cannot be filed under section 16(3) of the Act. In Kamladhari Rai vs. State of Bihar, reported in 1979 PLJR 132 it has been held that if the transfer is contrary to law then the transfer is void and application for preemption is not maintainable. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 has submitted that the application become infructuous since the respondent no. 4 has already constructed a house on the disputed land which fact is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 has further submitted that the land is not agricultural land and the court below has held in favour of the petitioner. 7. In my considered view it would be proper to remit the matter to the Additional Member. Board of Revenue since the impugned order passed by him is not in accordance with law. 8 Since he has not dealt with various questions raised by the petitioner. 7. In my considered view it would be proper to remit the matter to the Additional Member. Board of Revenue since the impugned order passed by him is not in accordance with law. 8 Since he has not dealt with various questions raised by the petitioner. The revisional order is hereby quashed and the matter is remitted to the Additional Member, Board of Revenue who will dispose of the revision application after hearing the parties within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There will be no order as to costs. Application allowed.