IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C. REV. No.127 of 2007 Vidya Prasad Singh, son of late Hanuman Singh, resident of Village- Daulatpur, P.S. Jamui, District- Munger. ------- Pre-emptor/Respondent no.5/Petitioner. Versus 1. The state of Bihar 2. The Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Additional Collector, Munger, District- Munger. 4. The Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Jamui, District- Munger----Respondents/Respondents. 5. Triveni Singh, son of Mangru Singh, resident of Village and P.O. Daulatpur, P.S. Jamui, District- Munger---Petitioner/Respondent. 6. Pyare Mahto, son of Niru Mahto 7. Satya Narain Mahto, son of Pyare Mahto, Both are residents of Village and P.o.Daulatpur, P.S. Jamui,District-Munger --------------- Respondents/Respondents. --------- 4. 7.1.2009 Heard Mr. Shashi Shekhar Dwivedi for the petitioner, and Mr. Praveen Kumar Jaipuriyar for respondent no.5. Respondent no.5 (Vidya Prasad Singh) of C.W.J.C. No.5608 of 1988 has filed this review application for recall of the judgment dated 15.5.2007, whereby the writ petition was disposed of. The writ petition arose out of proceedings under section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area & Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961, and was directed against the order dated 6.5.1988 (Annexure-1), passed in Revision Case No.15 of 1986, by the learned Additional Member, Board of Revenue. Respondent no.5 of the writ petition was represented by Mr. Harendra Prasad, Advocate. The matter was called out for final disposal on 22.1.2007, 2 on which date learned counsel for the writ petitioner was present but none had appeared on behalf of the respondents, and was adjourned for one week. It was heard in part on 26.3.2007, and again on 15.5.2007, on which date it was finally disposed of. The present review petition has been filed by respondent no.5 of the writ petition on the ground that his counsel was already dead in April 2002, and he was, therefore, un-represented before the learned writ court. It is prayed that the judgment may be recalled and may be disposed of after affording fresh opportunity of hearing to the parties including respondent no.5. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner has opposed the review petition. He submits that he is the purchaser and he has already constructed his house thereupon 25 years ago. He further submits that pre-emption is a weak right and, in case of doubt or difficulty, the court should lean in favour of the purchaser. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. The writ petition was lodged in this Court way back on 1.8.1988, remained pending for a long time, and was ultimately disposed of by the judgment dated 15.5.2007. It appears that learned counsel for respondent no.5 died in April 2002, but the writ petition was disposed of after a lapse of five years. The matter was thus taken up five years after the demise of counsel and, therefore, there was enough time for respondent no.5 to make alternative arrangements. It is difficult to recall the judgment in question also in 3 view of growing pendency in courts in India. I am reminded of the conclusion arrived at by Mr. Bibek Debroy in his book entitled „In the Dock : Absurdities of Indian Law‟, that the pending litigations in this country without any addition thereto, will take 324 years for disposal. The following portion of the book by Fali S. Nariman, entitled „India‟s legal system: Can it be saved”, are relevant in the present context: “More than one hundred years ago, a law member in the Government of India (Hobhouse) recorded in a minute dated 5 September 1872 (on the Bill leading to the Privy Council Appeal Act, 1874) the following observation: In considering what limit should be assigned to the power of appealing, our leading maxim is, that it is the interest of the commonwealth to have and end of law suits. No man has a right to unlitimated draughts on the time and money of the public in order to get his private affairs settled as he wishes. The state‟s duty is discharged when it has provided such a reasonable amount of attention and skill and honesty as will satisfy reasonable men that their causes have been decided, erroneously or otherwise, on the merits, and according to the best ability of the judge, and so will prevent them from feeling that resentment of sheer injustice which drives people to take the law into their hands and to wage private war. Upon this principle all laws place some limits to litigation. And so have we placed limits to the power of appealing. Pithily put, and elegantly phrased. The portion about no man having a right to unlimited draughts on the time and money of the public in order to get his private affairs settled as he wished was quoted by Justice Gajendragadkar (who later became Chief Justice of India) in one of the early reports of the Law Commission of India, but despite what was so wisely said by Mr Hobhouse and again by Chief Justice Gajendragadkar, our laws continue to provide (by way of appeals, reviews and revisions) unlimited draughts on the time and money of the public in order to get private affairs ultimately settled. For instance, we have now abolished second appeals, and yet lawyers go on 4 arguing endlessly about the maintainability of intra- court appeals under special laws.” Furthermore, learned counsel for the writ petitioner is right in his submission that in case of doubt and difficulty with respect to pre-emption cases, the court should lean in favour of the purchaser. In the result, I reach the conclusion of declining to recall the judgment dated 15.5.2007. This review application is accordingly rejected. Vinay/ ( S. K. Katriar , J.)