JUDGMENT : Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J. There is a delay of one year and 70 days in preferring the appeal. The reasons indicated therein are make- belief kind of statements and cannot be said to be cogent and valid for which indulgence should be shown. 2. However, even on the merits of the matter, the learned Single Judge vide order dated 31.07.2015 dismissed the writ application of the appellant refusing to interfere with the order dated 22.05.2012 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Kishanganj whereby and wherein the Appeal Case No.10 of 2011 filed by the respondents no.4 to 12 of the writ application had been allowed. The issue is whether a sikmidar can ever acquire a right to alienate the land in question. By virtue of the declaration of the status of a sikmidar, he is an under-raiyat. Whatever be the length and period of time as his status as under raiyat, he does not become a raiyat, which vests power in him to alienate the land and property in question to anybody. This is the reason why the learned Single Judge by stating the law refused to interfere with the decision in favour of the private respondents because any indulgence shown to the appellant upholding such transfer would be opening a flood gate of litigation as well as giving unending opportunity for mischief by such under- raiyats. The appeal has no merit. It is dismissed, so is the limitation petition.