IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.662 OF 2011 IN (CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE 827/2011) GAURI RAI @ GAURI MAHTO SON OF LATE MAUZI RAI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE – DIH PIPARIA, PS BARAHIYA, DISTRICT LAKHISARAI ...Appellant Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE ADDITIONAL MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, LAKHISARAI 4. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR, LAND REFORMS, LAKHISARAI 5. SURESH MAHTO, SON OF LATE MAUZI MAHTO, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE – DIH PIPARIA, PS BARAHIYA, DISTRICT LAKHISARAI 6. MANGAL RAI, SON OF LATE GAINU RAI , RESIDENT OF VILLAGE – DIH PIPARIA, PS BARAHIYA, DISTRICT LAKHISARAI .......Respondents ---------- 3 02-08-2011 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State in respect of limitation petition bearing I.A. no. 3036 of 2011 and also on the merits of the appeal. Limitation is only of nine days and, hence, we have considered the matter on merits. The writ court has dismissed the writ petition preferred by the appellant on the ground that it suffers from gross delay and laches. The facts relevant for considering the issue of delay and laches are not in dispute. The writ petition has been preferred against order of the Board of Revenue dated 30-11-2003 in case no. 18/2002. That case was preferred by the private respondent Suresh Mahto challenging the order of the appellate court 2 whereby pre-emption claim of the appellant was allowed. The revisional court, on the facts of the case, held that the sale in question which gave rise to the claim for pre-emption had itself been nullified by the vendor by executing another deed on the ground that the vendee had defaulted to pay the promised consideration money. The writ petition was preferred on 13-01-2011 and the explanation of the appellant for the delay is that he did not get intimation from his counsel that revision case no. 18/2002 has been allowed against appellant on 30-11-2003. The writ court has found the explanation to be vague and not acceptable. We find that the matter related to a litigation between co-villagers who are also said to be co-sharers and in respect of land situated in or around the village of the appellant. In such a situation, the fact of dismissal of the pre-emption application was bound to reach all concerned parties in the village and it is difficult to accept that for more than seven years the fact of rejection of pre-emption application by the revisional court could not be known to the parties. In the facts and circumstances of the case, 3 another relevant consideration would be development of the area in question or the vended land itself on account of passage of such a long period. Hence, in our considered view also, the long delay in preferring the writ petition after more than seven years cannot be ignored and no fault can be found with the order of the writ court. We find no good reason to interfere with the order of the writ court. The appeal is dismissed. It goes without saying that if the appellant has not made a prayer for withdrawal of deposit made by him for claiming pre-emption, he will be at liberty to make such an application and if that is done, the admissible amount should be refunded to him without any delay, preferably, within three months of filing of such application. BKS/- (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (Shivaji Pandey, J.)