\ta HTGH COURT OF CI-H-IATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION N0. 2691 of2003 Nan Ram S/o Shiv Ratan, caste Rajwar, R/o Village Birpur, Police Station Jainagar, Tahsil ' Surajpur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) RESPONDENTS : l. Ishwar S/o Surajan, aged about 50 years, Caste Rajwar, R/o Village Beerpur, Police Station Jainagar, Tahsil Surajpur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) 2. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Revenue Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, D.K.Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ’ PETITIONER VERSUS a; SB: Honble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shri Ashok K. Shukla, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Arvind Dubey, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No.2 ORAL ORDER (Passed on 16d; day of January, 2009) l. The petitioner has flled an application before the Naib Tehsildar, Pilkha, for settlement of the land bearing survey No. 322/15 area 1.25 acre and 219/48 area 0.37 acre located in village Birpur. The Naib Tehsildar, by order dated 13.07.2000 (Annexure P/3), rejected the application on the ground that a civil suit is pending in respect of the disputed land and grant of patta can be considered only after decision of the case pending in the civil court. Against that order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Sub Divisional Officer. The Sub Divisional Officer, by order dated 06.11.2001 (Annexure P/4) confirmed the findings recorded by the Naib Tehsildar and dismissed the appeal on the same ground that grant of patta can only be decided after disposal of the civil suit. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred a second appeal before the Commissioner. The Additional Commissioner, Bi‘laspur, dismissed the appeal on the ground that the appeal is barred by limitation on 13.09.2002 (Annexure P/5). Against the said order, the petitioner preferred a revision before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue confirmed the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, whereby the appeal was rejected as being time barred, by impugned order dated 11.6.2003 (Annexure P/l) Being aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of the impugned “t iH y order dated 11.6.2003. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the delay of 35 days in tiling first appeal before the Commissioner may be condoned in the interest ofjustice. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner on merits of ‘ the case. The findings and the order passed by the Naib Tehsildar and Sub Divisional Officer is in accordance with law. Civil suit is pending in respect of the petition schedule land‘ No patta can be granted in favour of anyone. Thus, the Naib Tehsildar as well as the Sub Divisional Officer have rightly rejected the application of the petitioner on the ground that the dispute with regard to title and ownership is pending consideration before the competent civil court. Subsequent rejection of appeal and revision on the ground of delay does not make material difference to the case. In View of the foregoing, I am of the considered view that the findings recorded by the‘ authorities below is just, proper and does not warrant interference. Accord ingly, the petition is dismissed. No order asto costs. Consequently, M(W)P No.2467 of2003, also stands dismissed.