IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4028 of 2007 SHYAM NARAYAN SHARMA @ SHYAM DEO SHARMA, son of late Sant Lal Sharma resident of village Pain, PS Sultanganj, Distt. Bhagalpur… Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through DM-cum- Settlement Officer, Bhagalpur 2. Kapildeo Yadav son of late Parmeshwar Yadav 3. Udai Kant Yadav son of late Mohilal Yadav 4. Pramod Yadav son of Late Mohilal Yadav 5. Anjani Kumar Yadav of Late Mohilal Yadav 6. Jai Prakash Yadav son of Sundar Yadav 7. Shiv Nandan Yadav son of Nathan Yadav 8. Suresh Yadav son of late Kamleshwari Yadav 9. Kapileshwar Yadav son of late Kamleshwari Yadav 10. Janardan Yadav son of late Kamleshwari Yadav 11. Munilal Yadav son of late Bhumi Yadav 12. Kailash Yadav son of late Bhumi Yadav 13. Seso Yadav son of late Bhumi Yadav 14. Basista Yadav son of Laxmi Yadav 15. Shiv Narayan Yadav son of Sukhdeo Yadav 16. Umesh Yadav son of Sri Bale Yadav 17. Ram Swaroop Yadav son of Sri Bale Yadav 18. Kishore Yadav son of late Mahadeo Yadav 19. Sukdeo Yadav son of late Raghunath Yadav 20. Karelal Yadav son of late Mahadeo Yadav - All residents of village Pain, PS Sultanganj,Distt. Bhagalpur …….. Respondents ----------- 02- 19.1.2009 Heard Mr. Ajit Kumar Singh for the petitioner, and Mr.Sunil Kumar Karn, learned JCto AAG VI. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 7.10.2002, passed by the learned District Magistrate-cum-Settlement Officer, Bhagalpur, whereby appeal has been dismissed on the ground of limitation. It appears to me on a perusal of the materials on record and consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, that the petitioner had preferred appeal after a delay of 380 days. The appeal was, therefore, rejected on the ground that he had been unable to make a cause of sufficient cause for condonation of the delay. Secondly, as stated - 2 - hereinabove, the appeal was dismissed on 7.10.2002, whereas the present writ petition was lodged in this Court on 20.3.2007. The writ petition also suffers from unexplained delay, laches, and negligence. The petitioner seems to have been negligent althrough. 2. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. ( S K Katriar ) mrl