IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.442 of 2007 **** JAWAHAR PRASAD SINGH, aged about 80 years, Son of Late Thakur Prasad Singh, R/o Village – Bangraha, P.S. Khagaria, Distt. Khagaria ……………………….…………….. Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, 2. District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Madhepura, 3. Addl. Collector, Madhepura, 4. Anchal Adhikari, Anchal – Alamnagar, Distt. Madhepura and 5. Dhrub Jyoti Singh, adopted son of late Babuan Prasad Singh, R/o Village – Majaura, Udakishanganj, Distt. Saharsa …………………….….. Respondents. ----------- 2. 12.01.2009. Heard Mr. Ashok Kumar Choudhary, for the petitioner and Mr. O.P. Upadhyay, learned Standing Counsel (Ceiling) No. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks a direction to the appropriate authority to dispose of his application filed in terms of Section 37 of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), which was indeed filed as per the order of this Court dated 27.4.1993 (Annexure 3), passed in CWJC No. 3594 of 1993 ( Jawahar Prasad Singh Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. ). According to the writ petition, lands of the petitioner were by mistake of the authorities under the Act tagged with the lands of late Babuan Prasad Singh, whose adopted son is Respondent No. 5. Lands of the petitioner were declared surplus in the land ceiling proceedings against said Babuan Prasad Singh. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner had moved this Court by preferring the said CWJC No. 3594 of 1993, which was disposed of with the observation that the petitioner may file an application under Section 37 of the Act - 2 - before the Collector under the Act, who shall consider his grievances vide order dated 27.4.1993 (Annexure-3). The petitioner raises a grievance that his application has remained pending for all these years. I have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It appears to me that the petitioner’s writ petition was disposed of by order dated 27.4.1993 whereby liberty was given to the petitioner to file an application under Section 37 of the Act before the learned Collector under the Act. There is no material on record to satisfy this Court that the petitioner did file such an application and, if at all, on which date. Furthermore, the provisions of Section 37 of the Act have been deleted by Act 8 of 1997, with effect from 27.3.1997. The quondam provision is, therefore, no longer available to the petitioner. Furthermore, the writ petition suffers from unexplained delay, laches, negligence, and acquiescence. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. dk ( S.K. Katriar, J. )