IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.973 of 2010 1. HARIHAR PRASAD S/O LATE BALDEO MAHTO R/O VILL.- BHADRU, P.O. BHADRU, P.S. NAGARNAUSA, DISTT.- NALANDA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH LAND REFORMS COMMISSIONER, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE ADDITIONAL MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE-CUM-DISTRICT REGISTRAR, NALANDA AT BIHAR SHARIF 4. THE ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR, NALANDA AT BIHAR SHARIF 5. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR LAND REFORMS, HILSA, NALANDA 6. DISTRICT SUB REGISTRAR, HILSA, DISTT.- NALANDA 7. RABINDRA PATEL S/O NARSINGH SINGH R/O VILL.- JAGDISHPUR, P.O. BHADRU, P.S. NAGAR NAUSA, DISTT.- NALANDA ----------- 02. 14.12.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and for the State. The relief sought for is to direct execution of the sale deed in favour of the petitioner. It is submitted that the father of respondent no.7 purchased the adjacent lands in pursuance of execution of a deed on 10.10.1979. The petitioner as adjoining raiyat and co-sharer filed an application for pre-emption under Section 16 (3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus land) Act. The matter was contested by both sides leading to remand and fresh orders, when finally it was dismissed by the D.C.L.R. on 31.10.2001, affirmed by the District Magistrate on 6.9.2002. It is submitted that matters have thus attained finality and in pursuance of which the petitioner was directed on 2 30.12.2003 by the D.C.L.R. to purchase and deposit the necessary Stamp papers which he purchased and deposited in the year 2004. Nonetheless, no steps are being taken for execution of the sale deed. The Court has heard counsel for the State also. The right of pre-emption has always been held to be weak right. On the own showing of the petitioner, he has been unable to explain his conduct from 2003/04 till he filed the present writ application in the year 2010. If the petitioner was not vigilant in pursuing his own claim for these long 6 to 7 years, there is no doubt that third party rights in favour of the erstwhile purchaser accrued and fructified and who may have made certain further investment on the lands sanguine in the belief that his occupation and possession were safe and that the petitioner notwithstanding his success was not interested in pursuing matters. There is no explanation whatsoever by the petitioner for the long delay in having approached this Court for the present relief. For reasons of unreasonable delay and laches attributable to the petitioner in pursuing matters not vigilant for protection of his own interests 3 and in absence of any explanation for the delay, pre- emption being a weak right, the Court in the entirety of the matter is not persuaded to interfere with the issue at this belated stage. The application is dismissed. P.K. ( Navin Sinha, J.)