IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.886 of 2006 DEV NARAYAN PODDAR & ANR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the Appellants : Mr. Nirmal Kumar Sinha, Advocate ------------ P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal ------------- Dated, the 2nd September, 2008. Appeal suffers from delay of 279 days and For condonation thereof an application (I.A. No. 5379 of 2006) has been made. It is stated in the application that although the impugned order came to be passed on 25th January, 2006, the appellants had no knowledge of the said decision. It is alleged that as nothing was heard about the case from the counsel for a long time, the appellants came to Patna on 7th November, 2006 and went to the counsel to know the position of the writ petition. At that time the counsel informed him that the writ petition has been dismissed on 25th January, 2006. It is stated that then the application for obtaining the certified copy was made on 8th November, 2006 and thereafter the certified copy was received on 17th November, 2006 and then the appeal came to be filed. 2. We find it difficult to accept the explanation sought to be set-up in the application that the appellants came to know of the impugned order dated 25th January, 2006 when they met their - 2 - counsel at Patna. It is so because, there is no material placed on record by the appellants, which may, prima facie, persuade us to believe that on 7th November, 2006, the appellants came to Patna. As a matter of fact, the perusal of the application reveals that on dotted lines, the date 7th November, 2006 has been written. If the appellants traveled from their village to meet the Advocate at Patna, they could have placed on record the document of travel. There is no affidavit, either of the counsel or the clerk, that no intimation was sent to the appellants about the decision in the case or that the appellants came to Patna on 7th November, 2006 and met them. It is, thus, apparent that a make- believe ground of lack of knowledge has been set-up. The application does not spell out sufficient cause explaining long delay of 279 days. The application for condonation of delay is liable to be rejected, and we order accordingly. 3. Even for the argument’s sake, we assume that the delay has been sufficiently explained, from the perusal of the order dated 25th January, 2006 and the orders of the revenue officials, we find that even otherwise the appellants have no case in the matter. The land in question is surplus land declared as such under Section 15(1) of Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961. There is no dispute that the notification under Section 15(1) holds the field with regard to the subject land having been acquired as surplus land. Since the notification under Section 15(1) holds the field, any ownership in the land that the - 3 - appellant may have had, has been extinguished. 4. Seen thus, we find that there is no error in the impugned order justifying any interference by us. 5. L.P.A. is dismissed accordingly. R. M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J Pawan/-