Krishna Murari, J. - (1.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.
(2.) In spite of notice, contesting respondent Nos. 2 to 4 have not entered into appearance.
(3.) The facts are that on an application moved by the petitioner for correcting the valuation in accordance with the order dated 3.8.1994 passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation a reference was prepared and forwarded to the Deputy Director of Consolidation for confirmation. Tin Deputy Director of Consolidation vide impugned order dated 18.9.2002 rejected the same on the ground that proposal for denotification of the village under section 52 has already been proposed and sent for publication in gazette and as such the consolidation authorities have no jurisdiction.;