Judgment S. B. Sinha, J. 1. In this application the petitioners have sought for issuance of a writ of certlorari for quashing an order dated 22-1-1991 passed in Ceiling case No 572 of 1990-91 as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ application whereby an application under Sec.45b of the Bihar Land reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) was rejected. 2. The fact of the matter lies in a very narrow compass. 3. The lands involved in this application have been described in paragraph 4 of the writ application which reads thus : - "that the lands in question namely 2 02 acres of plot No.30. Khata no.87, and 0 56 Acres of plot No.20, Khata No.20 and 0 45 acres of plot No.21. Khata No.20 and 1.34 Acres of plot No 4, khata No.48, all of Tauzi No 29 situated in Mauza Nikhra, P. S. Kadwa, in the Distt. of Kathar originally belonged to one saying bhagat who was the recorded raiyat. " 4. The petitioner Nos.1 to 3 are said to have purchased plot No.20 and 21 from Saryug Bhagat by registered sale deed dated 30-1-1967. The said petitioner No 1 also purchased plot No.4 from Saryug Bhagat by a registered deed of sale dated 11-11-1967. 5. The petitioner Nos.1 and 9 allegedly purchased plot No.30 from syam Lal Bhagat by a registered deed of sale dated 21-2-1964. The said syam Lal Bhagat in turn purchased the aforementioned land from Saryug bhagat. 6. The petitioners have contended that the lands in question have been included in the notification issued under Sec.15 (1) of the act as lands of saryug Bhagat. 7. The petitioners thereafter filed an application under Sec.45b of the Act on 10-3-1987. The petitioner has also filed an application in this court being CWJC No.2246 of 1988 questioning the notification issued in the proceeding of Ceiling case No, 4 of 1973-74 and by an order dated 25-4-1988 the said application was disposed of with an observation that the petitioners application under Sec.45-B should he considered by the Collector. The said application was dismissed for default on 8-5-1990. 8. The said application was dismissed for default on 8-5-1990. 8. An application for restoration was thereafter filed which was also dismissed by an order dated 17-7-1990 inter alia on the ground that the same was premature, as against the order in the main ceiling case No.4 of 1973-74 respondent No 6 Makhit Prasad Bhagat son of Saryug Prasad Bhagat preferred an appeal which was being pursued. The said ceiling Appeal No.463 of 1986-87 filed by Makit Prasad Bhagat son of Saryug Prasad Bhagat was dismissed on 6-7-1990. 9. According to the petitioners, that said aspect of the matter was totally ignored by the Collector while passing the aforementioned order dated 17-7-1990 in Misc. Case No.432 of 1990-91 the petitioners thereafter filed another application under Sec.45b of the Act which was numbered as Ceiling Case No.572 of 1990-91. By an order dated 22-1-1990-91 the said application was dismissed on an assumption that notices under Sec.5 (i) (iii) of the Act had been sent in Ceiling Case no.4 of 1973-74. 10. The petitioners have contended (hat they had not been noticed in the said proceedings under Sec.4 (i) (iii) of the Act. 11. A counter affidavit has been filed in this case wherein it has been contended that the purchases made by the petitioners had been annuled in a proceeding under Sec.5 (1) (iii) of the Act. In the said proceeding notices were issued to the writ petitioners whereafter no fresh materials have been brought before the respondent District Collector, Katihar so as to warrant reopening of the said proceeding. 12. It has been contended that Saryug Prasad Bhagat made a large number of transfers but the said tranfers were merely paper transactions as in fact he remained in possession of the transferred lands. 13. It is stated that total lands involved in Land Ceiling case No.4 of 1973-74 was 874.56 acres were situated in different villages and as the petitioners had participated in the annulment proceeding and the final order has been passed therein, the impugned order cannot be sustained. 14. In view of the fact that a proceeding under Sec.5 (1) (iii) of the said Act had been initiated against the petitioners and the transfers made in his favour by Saryug Bhagat has been annulled, in our opinion, no case for interference with the impugned order has been made out. 15. 14. In view of the fact that a proceeding under Sec.5 (1) (iii) of the said Act had been initiated against the petitioners and the transfers made in his favour by Saryug Bhagat has been annulled, in our opinion, no case for interference with the impugned order has been made out. 15. Further this writ application itself has been filed after 18 months. We are not satisfied with the exmination offered by the petitioners in filing the writ application after such an unreasonable delay. This application is, thereafter, dismissed. Application Dismissed.