1. Heard Sri Yashwant Singh "Subansha", learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri S.P. Saroj, who appears for the respondent no. 4.
2. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 4.7.2013, whereby the transfer application filed by the petitioners had been rejected by the Joint Director of Consolidation, U.P., Lucknow.
3. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that an objection under section 9A (2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act was filed before the Consolidation Officer. This objection was first transferred, on a transfer application filed by the father of respondents 4 to 6, from the court of Consolidation Officer, Sadar to Court of Consolidation Officer Phulpur. Subsequently, on another transfer application filed by the respondent no. 21, the case was transferred from the Court of C.O., Phulpur to the Court of S.O. Tahbarpur.
4. Since the matter had remained pending for a very long time, the petitioners filed a writ petition before this Court, which was disposed of in the year 2013 directing the C.O., Tahbarpur to decide the matter within a period of four months. In pursuance of the direction aforesaid, the C.O., Tahbarpur, decided the objection vide order 27.5.2013.
5. It has been alleged by the petitioners that after the C.O. decided the objection, a report was published in the newspaper regarding a dharna before the S.O.C. regarding the order passed by the Consolidation Officer, Tahbarpur, which has been appended to this writ petition, it is a newspaper cutting of Dainik Jagran, Varanasi Edition dated 29th May, 2013. This newspaper report indicates that the S.O.C. before whom the dharna was conducted, had assured the persons resorting to the dharna that the records would be examined by him and in case an appeal was filed, he would decide the same after lookking into it and also grant a stay if required.
7. From the above, it is clear that the S.O.C. has merely assured the villagers that justice would be done by him.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that by such assurance given by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation to the public at large, the petitioners did not expect to get justice from the court of S.O.C. and, therefore, filed the transfer application. The transfer application has been rejected by the impugned order, and hence this writ petition.
9. On merits, the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner are two fold. The first submission is that the consolidation authorities in the District Azamgarh have been divided into two units. The old unit and the new unit. The jurisdiction of the village where the property in dispute is situated was with the C.O., Sadar, which was part of the old unit. The objection was decided consequent to its transfer before the Consolidation Officer Tahbarpur, which court is part of the new unit. It is, therefore, submitted that the appeal would lie before the old unit but had been filed before the S.O.C., New Unit and, therefore, the matter was liable to be transferred to the Court of S.O.C., Old Unit.
10. The second submission is that the villagers felt prejudiced by the statement of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, New unit, as reported in the newspaper cutting, which has been annexed to the writ petition. They therefore did not expect the S.O.C. to decide the appeal firstly as he had already expressed his opinion that in case required he would stay the order under appeal.
11. Learned counsel for the respondents in rebuttal has supported the impugned order and has prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
12. Upon consideration of the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and upon a perusal of the record, it would be relevant to refer the case law reported in 1989 RD 304, wherein it has been held that jurisdiction in cases, that have been transferred, would lie before the Court, normally exercising jurisdiction as far as appeals, revisions etc. against orders passed by the transferee court.
13. In such view of the matter, the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that since the case originally was to be decided by the Consolidation Officer, Old Unit, the appeal would lie to the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Old Unit, is not correct. Since the Consolidation Officer, Tahbarpur (New Unit) has decided the case, the appeal would lie to the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, New Unit and the submission to the contrary is not legally tenable.
14. Insofar as the question of prejudice being caused, it would suffice to state that the basis of the transfer application as also the writ petition is a newspaper cutting. It is settled law that a newspaper cutting is not conclusive of what has been stated therein and the same cannot be relied upon. For this reason also, the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner lacks merit.
15. Lastly, it has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the order impugned deserves to be set aside because a wholly perverse observation has been made therein. The transfer application had been filed seeking the transfer from the court of Settlement Officer, Consolidation, New Unit to Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Old Unit while the opposite party no. 1 has recorded in the impugned order that the transfer was being sought outside the District.
16. I have given my anxious consideration to this submission as well. Even if a wrong observation has been made in the impugned order, and such observation is ordered to be expunged, yet the same will not alter the fact that it is the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, New Unit, who has jurisdiction to decide the appeal.
16. As already noted hereinabove, the grounds set out in the transfer application lack merit.
17. Accordingly and in the facts and circumstances of the case, I find no illegality in the impugned order.
18. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed and, is therefore dismissed.
19. No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 10.10.2014 SR