IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.827 of 2011 GAURI RAI @ GAURI MAHTO, SON OF LATE MAUZI RAI ….PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE ADDITIONAL MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,LAKHISARAI 4. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR, LAND REFORMS, LAKHISARAI 5. SURESH MAHTO, SON OF LATE MAUZI MAHTO 6. MANGAL RAI, SON OF LATE GAINU RAI …RESPONDENTS For the petitioner :Mr. Shivnandan Roy, Sr. Advocate & :Mr. Jai Prakash Singh For the State : Mr. Manoj Kr. Ambastha, G.P.14 & : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, AC to GP 14 ----------- 03. 04.02.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is the pre-emptor. He filed an application seeking right of pre-emption in respect of a sale which was effected on 22.02.2000 by respondent no.5 in favour of respondent no.6. It appears that part of consideration money as promised by the vendor was not paid as a result whereof the vendor after putting the vendee on notice executed and registered a deed of cancellation on 02.06.2000 whereby the sale earlier effected in favour of respondent no.6 was cancelled. Thereafter, the said application seeking pre-emption was filed. Respondent-D.C.L.R., by order dated 10.01.2001, rejected the said application. Said order is not on record. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred appeal which was allowed by order dated 2 22.12.2011 (Annexure-1). Aggrieved over the said order, the purchaser preferred revision before the respondent-Board of Revenue. The revisional court by Resolution dated 30.11.2003 (Annexure-2), has taken a view that the sale deed in question having been annulled by execution of deed of cancellation on 02.06.2000, i.e. before filing of the pre-emption application, there was no question of enforcing the right of pre-emption which was a weak right. The said order was passed on 30.11.2003, whereas the present application has been lodged in this Court on 13.01.2011. No explanation for such inordinate delay in assailing the order has been set out in the main application. A supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioner explaining the circumstances under which the petitioner could not file the writ proceeding before this Court for eight years. It is the stand of the petitioner that he could not get any information about disposal of the revision application by the concerned lawyer. It is also stated that he resides in remote area which is a Diyara. Learned counsel for the State submits that the present writ application suffers from delay and gross laches. Many settled things, in the meanwhile, shall now be unsettled by entertaining the present application. It is also submitted that explanations submitted by the petitioner are vague. I have considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and perused the materials on record. This 3 Court is of the view that explanations submitted in the supplementary affidavit are totally vague and do not satisfactorily explain the circumstances leading to inordinate delay. The writ application, therefore, suffers from gross delay and laches. This Court is not inclined to invoke its extra- ordinary writ jurisdiction in the matter. The application is accordingly dismissed. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )