IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1411 of 1998 1. Ram Iqbal Yadav 2. Ram Avdesh Yadav, sons of Sheo Yogi Yadav. 3. Kailash Yadav 4. Ram Vilash Yadav, sons of Ram Nath Yadav. 5. Ram Chandra Yadav 6. Sheo Bachan Yadav, sons of Sheo Pujan Yadav., all resident of Village- Attaon, P.S. Dumraon, District-Bhojpur. ---- Pre- emptors/Respondent nos. 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10/Appellants. Versus 1. The Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Patna. 2. The Additional Collector, Bhojpur at Aarah. 3. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Buxar. 4. Sri Kawal Chaudhary, Son of Sri Rajeshwar Chaudhary. 5. Sidh Nath Singh Yadav, son of Sheo Pujan Yadav, both are resident of Village-Attaon, P.S. Dumraon, District-Bhojpur ----- Purchasers/Petitioners/Respondent Second Party. 6. Ganga Sagar Pandey, Son of Ram Pati Pandey, resident of Village-Attaon, P.S. Dumraon, District-Bhojpur ---- Respondent no.12/Respondent 3rd party. 7. Radhey Shyam Yadav, son of Sheo Yogi Yadav. 8. Dhram Pal Yadav, son of Sheo Pujan Yadav, both of Village- Attaon, P.S. Dumraon, District-Bhojpur ----- Respondent nos. 6 & 11 –Respondent 4th Party. ---------------- I.A. No.15655 of 1998 6. 16.11.2009 Heard Mr. Nirmal Kumar Singh for the appellants, and Mr. Ashok Kumar Mishra, learned Assistant Counsel to Standing Counsel No.16. Learned counsel for the appellants presses this interlocutory application under the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. It appears that the writ petition was disposed of on 19.3.1998, and the present appeal was lodged in this Court on 22.12.1998. There was thus a delay of a little more than eight months in preferring this appeal. In view of the statements made in this application and the submissions made in support thereof, we are not convinced as to the explanation offered on behalf of 2 the appellants. It is a case of laches and negligence. Furthermore, the subject matter of this appeal has been scrutinized by three quasi-judicial authorities, and a learned Single Judge of this Court. In that view of the matter, we are not inclined to condone the delay in preferring this appeal. I.A. No.15655 of 1998 is accordingly disposed of. Consequently the appeal becomes incompetent and can not proceed. The appeal is dismissed. Vinay/ ( S. K. Katriar ,J. ) (Kishore K. Mandal, J.)