ORDER S.S. Negi, IAS, FC. - This revision petition preferred by Baru son of Tibu resident of Ladori Tehsil Nurpur Distt. Kangra through his General Power of Attorney Sh. Dev Raj resident of Ladori, is directed against the order dated 11.7.1997 passed by the Commissioner Kangra Division whereby the revision filed by the present petitioner against the order dated 28.8.1995 of the Settlement Collector, Kangra was dismissed. 2. The facts of the case briefly stated are that Shri Milkhi Ram the present respondent filed an application before the Naib Tehsildar (Settlement) Nurpur seeking correction of Khasra girdawari in respect of land comprised in Khasra Nos. 1709 and 1717 kita 2 measuring 0-60-74 Hects situated in Mohal Ladori Tehsil Nurpur claiming himself to be in cultivating possession of the land as non-occupancy tenant. The Assistant Collector after having enquired into the matter, allowed correction vide his orders dated 14.6.1984. 3. Aggrieved of this order, Sh. Baru the present petitioner filed an appeal before the Settlement Collector on 11.7.1995 who dismissed the same as barred by limitation vide his order dated 28.8.1995. . 4. Against this order, of the Settlement Collector dated 28 8.1995, Shri Baru filed revision petition before the Divisional Commissioner, Kangra on the grounds that the learned Settlement Collector was wrong in not condoning the delay in filing the appeal by the present petitioner before him and that he had not been associated with the proceedings and he had no knowledge of the order hence the limitation had to be counted from the day of gaining knowledge. He contended that he had filed a Civil Suit in the Court of sub-Judge, Nurpur for. Declaration in the year 1988 but the Civil Court returned the same to lok Adalat and subsequently in view of law laid down in 1991 SLC 223 Chunmia v. Zindu, the case was returned to him and thus prayed that delay did not accur due to his fault. 5. The learned Commissioner after hearing both the parties and going through the record found that the Revenue Officer below had associated the petitioner Shri Baru before allowing correction of entry who had also admitted the claim of Shri Milkhi Ram and confirmation of his possession before the Assistant Collector II Grade and held the revision of the present petitioner hopelessly time barred and therefore, dismissed the revision petition vide his order dated -11.7.1997. 6. 6. Dis-satisfied with this order, Shri Baru petitioner has preferred this revision petition and has reiterated the similar grounds seeking dismissal of impugned order and a direction for hearing the matter on merits as the petitioner claims to have acquired the knowledge of the proceedings much later and therefore the limitation should have been deemed to have commenced from the date of acquisition of knowledge. 7. The matter has been heard and the relevant records have been perused. 8. The admitted facts of the case are that Assistant Collector passed orders on the application of Shri Milkhi Ram son of Shri Rijhu on 14.6.1984. Prior to the passing of these orders, the Assistant Collector recorded the statements of the parties, including present petitioner on 18.1.1982 and 24.2.1982. The learned Commissioner has noted in his order that the petitioner also appeared before Assistant Collector in subsequent proceedings also, so much so that he even admitted the claim of the respondent in his statement on 24.2.1982. Therefore, the petitioner cannot feign ignorance of the order of the Assistant Collector passed on 14.6.1984. The petitioner also filed a Civil Suit against this order on 12.12.1988 in the Civil Court, which is stated to have been returned to him on 15.1.1994, even then the appeal was filed by him before the Settlement Collector on 11.7.1995. Had the petitioner been vigilant about his right, he would have preferred an appeal before concerned authority as filing of Civil Suit did not debar him from filing appeal against the order of the Assistant Collector before appropriate authority. Thus there is no justification for condonation of delay for a period of 13 years. The petitioner is not entitled to the indulgence of this j court as the appeal has been rightly held to be barred bys limitation and laches. Consequently, the revision petition is hereby dismissed. 9. Orders be communicated to the parties and case file of this court be consigned to the record room after due completion.