Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J. - (1.) RESPONDENT No. 3 Ved Prakash is represented by Sri. Sushil Kumar who has accepted notice. The said Respondent may file counter affidavit within 3 weeks. One week is granted to file a rejoinder affidavit.
(2.) LIST on 2.5.2011. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that the Petitioner has been non suited by the Deputy Director of Consolidation on the ground that the High Court while disposing of the matter on 15.10.2008 had not directed the Settlement Officer Consolidation to entertain the appeal filed by the Petitioner on merits. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that it is a total misreading of the said order. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further contends that the order dated 9.1.1998 had been passed but no direction or consent from the villagers was taken with regard to the demarcation of the land which was subsequently made in the order and therefore to that extent the direction of the Consolidation Officer is exparte.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the Petitioner further contends that even otherwise the order is against the records on merits inasmuch as the measurement according to the area recorded in respect of plot Nos. 478/1 and 479/2 has not been carried out as per the Bandobast map. It is admitted to the parties that holdings were recorded as grove and it has been left out of consolidation proceedings. It is therefore contended that altering the demarcated land was without authority in law.;