IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14349 of 2007 Javed Alam S/O Late Abdul Hamid resident of Village Bhagwanpur P.S. Bochhon Distt. Muzaffarpur --------- Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Land and Revenue Development Dept. Bihar, Patna. 2. The Consolidation Officer, Bochan (Muzaffarpur) ----------- Opposite Parties (Respondents). ------------ 2. 17.3.2009 Mr. Manoj Kumar for the petitioner, and Mr. Manoj Kumar Jha, learned Assistant Counsel to Government Advocate No.1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 12.11.1990, passed in Case No. 116 of 1990, by respondent no.2 under the provisions of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Learned Government Counsel is right in his submission that this is not a bonafide writ petition, inasmuch as the petitioner has approached this Court directly without exhausting the statutory remedy available to him, because of delay involved in the matter. The following portion of the judgment of this Court dated 7.1.2009, passed in C. Rev. No. 127 of 2007 (Vidya Prasad Singh Vrs. The State of Bihar& Ors.), may be usefully quoted: “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 2 and end of law suits. No man has a right to unlimited 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 arguing endlessly about the maintainability of intra- court appeals under special laws.” The writ petition suffers from un-explained delay, laches, negligence and acquiescence. It is a frivolous writ petition and is accordingly dismissed. Vinay/ ( S. K. Katriar ,J. )