Court No. - 9
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 5576 of 2018 Petitioner :- Mohd. Zafar Respondent :- Joint Director Of Consolidation U.P And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pradeep Kumar,Gyanendra Prakash Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Kunal Ravi Singh,Santosh Kr. Singh Paliwal
Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Kunal Ravi Singh, counsel for the respondent No. 3.
The instant writ petition is directed against the order dated 16.10.2018 passed by the Joint Director of Consolidation, Lucknow, rejecting the transfer application under Rule 56 of the UP Consolidation of Holdings Rules filed by the petitioner.
This transfer application sought transfer of an appeal No. 569/614 filed by the respondent, outside the District.
The contention of counsel for the petitioner is that the order impugned is vitiated. The transfer application was filed because the Settlement Officer Consolidation had preponed the date of hearing, on an application filed by the opposite party. This preponement was on account of opposite party having entered into a sale agreement with third parties and, therefore, the Settlement Officer Consolidation was taking undue interest in the matter.
From a perusal of the impugned order it appears it was also argued that the Settlement Officer Consolidation was fixing short dates in the matter.
The petitioner had earlier filed another transfer application which had also been rejected and against the said order a writ petition No. 18013 of 2013 was filed. An interim order was initially granted therein, but the same was vacated and the writ petition itself came to be dismissed for want of prosecution. However that the writ petition has been dismissed as infructuous by a separate order passed today.
It appears that the proceedings before the appellate court were stalled on account of the aforesaid interim order and when the said interim order was vacated due to dismissal for default of the writ petition, the second transfer application was filed which has been dismissed by the order impugned in this writ petition.
This Court fails to discern any merit in this writ petition. The submission that the date in the appeal was preponed on an application of the opposite party, by itself, cannot be a ground for transfer of the appeal to another district. The transfer application has therefore, rightly been rejected by the order impugned.
Additionally, this court is also of the opinion, on the basis of facts noticed above, that there appears to be a concerted effort on the part of the petitioner to stall decision of the appeal of the respondent which arises out of an objection under Section 9-A (2) of the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act.
This writ petition is dismissed with the observation that the parties shall appear before the Settlement Officer Consolidation on 11.12.2018 to make their submission on which date the Court concerned shall proceed with the matter in accordance with law, after hearing the parties.
Order Date :- 26.11.2018 Priyanka