IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8764 of 2007 1. Sk. Mohammad Suleman, 2. Sk. Mohammad Shamshad Ali, Gausi, 3. Sk. Mohammad Dilshad Ali. All S/o Sk. Mohammad Jalil. 4. Bibi Quraisha Khatoon, wife of Sk. Mohammad Jalil. All residents of village- Safiyabad, P.S. Baikunthpur, District- Gopalganj. ... Petitioners. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Member Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Addl. Collector, Gopalganj, 4. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Gopalganj. 5. Abdool Sattar, S/o Late Gafoor Mian. 6. Md. Naimuddin, s/o Late Habib. Both residents of village- Reotithgarh, P.S. Baikunthpur, District- Gopalganj. .. Respondents. ----------- 02- 11.2.2009 Heard Mr. Yogesh Chandra Verma for the petitioners, and Mr. Saket Tiwary, learned assistant counsel to Government Pleader No.16 for respondent nos.1 to 4. It arises out of proceedings under section-16 (3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). It is with respect to plot no.3700 and 2710, covering an area of 7 katha and 19 dhurs, appertaining to Khata no.396 and 313, situate at Mauza Reotithgarh, P.S. Baikunthpur, District- 2 Gopalganj. The petitioners are the purchasers and respondent no.5 (Abdool Sattar) is the pre- emptor. 2. Respondent no.5 filed an application under section 16(3) of the Act, which was allowed by order dated 2.1.1998 (Annexure-2), passed by the learned Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Gopalganj, in Pre-emption Case No.27 of 1994-95/ 3 of 1996-97/17 of 2001-02 (Abdul Sattar Vs. Bibi Quraisha Khatoon and others), and it was held that the pre-emptor is an adjoining raiyat with respect to the vended plot, and the purchasers (the petitioners herein) are neither co-sharers nor adjoining raiyats with respect to the vended plot. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioners preferred appeal which was rejected by order dated 30.12.2000 (Annexure-3), passed by the learned Additional Collector, Gopalganj, in L.C. Appeal No.1 of 1998/1 of 1998-99 (Sheikh Muhammad Suleman & others Vs. Abdul Sattar), and the order of the learned first authority was upheld. The purchaser preferred revision application in terms of Section-32 of the Act, which was dismissed for default by the learned Member, Board of Revenue, by order dated 1.10.2002 3 (Annexure-4), passed in Revision Case No.21 of 2001 (Sk. Mohammad Suleman and others Vs. Abdool Sattar and others). 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners’ case was dismissed for non-prosecution by the learned Member, Board of Revenue and, therefore, they may be given an opportunity of hearing and for judgment on merits. It appears that the impugned order was passed on 1.10.2002, and the present writ petition was lodged in this Court on 20.7.2007, after a lapse of little less than five years. The writ petition suffers from unexplained delay, laches, negligence and acquiescence. 4. The writ petition is dismissed. (S K Katriar, J.) S.K.Pathak/