IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14355 of 2007 Ghura Ram, son of late Lakhan Ram, resident of Daudnagar, Police Station- Daudnagar, Ward No.13 (Earlier Ward No.9), District- Aurangabad. ..... Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Janardan Lal, son of Yadunandan Lal. 3. Devendra Lal. 4. Upendra Lal. 5. Rabindra Lal, all son of Awadh Bihari Lal. 6.Krishna Murari Lal, son of Narsingh Lall. 7. Kamta Lal. 8. Chandra Kishore Lal. 9. Ravi Kishore Lal. 10.Gopilal Respondent nos.7 to 10 sons of Murari Lal. 11. Tripurari Lal, son of Raghunandan Lal. 12. Mohan Lal. 13. Rajan Lal. 14. Arvind Lal Respondent no.12 to 14 sons of Kapildeo Lal. All residents of Mohalla- Kandu Ram Ki Grh, P.O. and P.S.- Daudnagar, District- Aurangabad. 15.The Assistant Survey Superintendent, Daudnagar, Aurangabad (Gaya) at present Gaya, District- Gaya. 16. The Survey Superintendent, Gaya. ...... Respondents. ----------- 02- 2.3.2009 Heard Mr. Raghubansh Singh for the petitioner, and Mr. Mani Kant Mishra, learned Government Pleader No.21. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 20.6.2007 (Annexure-1), passed by respondent no.16, in Appeal Case No.140 of 2007 (Dhura Ram Vs. Janardan Lal and others), in purported 2 exercise of powers under Section 15(1) of the Bihar and Orissa Municipal Survey Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’), whereby he has dismissed the appeal preferred by the present petitioner, on the ground of delay. The learned Government Pleader has supported the impugned order. 2. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It appears that the petitioner had filed application under Section-9 of the Act before respondent no.15 for correction in the revenue records. The same was rejected on 22.6.1998 (Annexure- 2), on the ground of continued non-appearance of learned counsel for the parties. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner filed the aforesaid appeal in terms of Section-15(1) of the Act in 2007. The same has been rejected by the impugned order on the ground that the appeal was filed after a lapse of eight years and the delay is unexplained. The impugned order cannot be faulted. 3. The writ petition is dismissed. As prayed, it will be open to the petitioner to file a civil suit in a court of competent 3 jurisdiction for appropriate reliefs. This order should not be taken to be an expression of the views of this Court on the maintainability or the merits of the proposed suit. (S K Katriar, J.) S.K.Pathak/