Gajendra Pal Singh vs D.D.C. and Others

Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J.—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.

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.

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.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that it is this dispute which was raised by the Petitioner by moving a restoration application. This Court vide its judgment dated 15.10.2008 left it open to the Petitioner to file an appeal against the order of Consolidation Officer holding that the restoration matter as raised by the Petitioner cannot be sustained. In the aforesaid back ground, after the restoration matter had become final, the Petitioner filed an appeal in the year 2008. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has urged that this Court in Writ Petition No. 8890 of 2000 had passed an interim order staying the consolidation operations on 19.2.2000 which was ultimately dismissed in Nov.,2004.

From a perusal of the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 20.11.2009 there does not appear to be any consideration of the aforesaid facts for condoning the delay and the delay was condoned in a cursory manner. The Deputy Director of Consolidation also has not looked into this aspect of the matter.

Until further orders of this Court the parties are directed not to alienate the property in dispute or change the nature of the same.