Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.
This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 17.12.2020 passed by the District Deputy Director of Consolidation Unnao wherein he has rejected the transfer application of the petitioner by observing that no good ground has been made out by the petitioner for transfer of the case said to be pending before one D.D.C. to some other D.D.C.
It has been submitted that by an order dated 17.2.2020, the S.O.C. partly allowed the appeal of the petitioner against the order passed by the Consolidation Officer dated 16.1.2019. The petitioner filed Revision no.343/2020 before the D.D.C. Unnao. Another revision was filed by respondent no.2 against the same order of S.O.C. which was numbered as Revision no.537/2020. The D.D.C. consolidated both the revisions and heard them together along with other revisions but the D.D.C. decided the other revision and kept back the revision of the petitioner and respondent no.2. The grand son of the petitioner who was doing pairvi was told that the next date fixed for order was 30.9.2020.
It has been submitted that the grand son of the petitioner had seen that respondent no.2 and Kanoongo were talking with D.D.C. in his chamber and therefore, the petitioner apprehended bias and, preferred a transfer application before the District Deputy Director of Consolidation i.e. District Magistrate, which application has been rejected summarily by observing that no good ground has been made out for transfer.
However, learned Standing Counsel has pointed out that in the transfer application, the petitioner has also stated that his grand son had heard the Peshkaar and Kanoongo telling the respondent no.2 that his revision shall be allowed.
This Court has perused the order impugned. The District Magistrate had called for the files and thereafter had come to the conclusion that both the revisions which were connected together were heard and orders were reserved, but later on, no orders were passed, but that would not substantiate the apprehension of the petitioner about the bias of the D.D.C., Unnao. It was also observed by the District Magistrate that both the revisions were at the final stage as hearing had been concluded or at least was on the stage of reaching conclusion and therefore, it would not be proper to transfer the case to some other D.D.C. as it would further prolong the proceedings.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in Hari Shankar vs. Deputy Direct of Consolidation and others, 1970 RD 167, where the Supreme Court observed that the appellant's allegation that the respondents' counsel and the Deputy Director of Consolidation were relatives was not refuted. The appellant was also not given any reasonable opportunity to present his case and his transfer application was rejected. The Court observed that since the order rejecting transfer application merely mentioned that when the case was taken up, the appellant's counsel went away. It appears that no reasonable opportunity to present his case was given to the appellant. The principles of natural justice being curtailed, the matter was remanded for being heard by some other D.D.C. in accordance with law.
As is evident from the facts stated hereinabove, the judgment rendered in Hari Shankar (supra) was on different facts altogether. Moreover, the Supreme Court itself observed that "on the facts of the case" that was before it, it could not be said that the appellant's suspicion about impartiality of the proceedings of the Court was either baseless or unfounded.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon another order passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Gaya Lal vs. Joint Director, Consolidation, U.P. Lucknow and others, 2011 (113) RD 517.
In the said case, the application for transfer moved by the writ petitioner was rejected by the Joint Director of Consolidation. The petitioner therein had moved an application for transfer because the S.O.C. had failed to issue fresh notices to respondent nos.2 and 3. In the said petition, the Court observed thus:-
"4. The petitioner has not been able to persuade this Court that the order passed by the Joint Director is bad. Prima facie no case has been made out by the petitioner. The ground taken in the application for transfer have not been substantiated at all. If on the basis of unsubstantiated charges, every case is transferred from officers, it will have demoralizing effect on the presiding officers in general. The application has been rightly rejected by the Joint Director of Consolidation."
However, in Para 6 of the said order, the coordinate Bench has observed that 'without accepting the allegations levelled against the Settlement Officer of Consolidation and without condemning or rejecting the order passed by the Joint Director of Consolidation, the Court feels that, that in the larger interest of justice, it should not only be done, it should also appear to have been done, as a rare case, the Joint Director of Consolidation is directed to give it a fresh thought and transfer the matter to some other Settlement Officer within his jurisdiction.' The order of the coordinate Bench cited before me is not a judgment as it does not lay down any ratio. It conned be considered as a binding precedent.
This Court is aware of the observations of the Supreme Court in Gurcharan Das Chadha vs. State of Rajasthan AIR 1966 SC 1418, that mere apprehension expressed on the impartiality of the Presiding Officer by a litigant is in itself not a good ground for transfer of a case that is being considered by the Presiding Officer. The apprehension should be a reasonable apprehension that can be entertained by reasonable man. For the transfer of a case, a mere allegation that there is apprehension that justice will not be done does not suffice though the party is not required to show that justice will inevitably fail but it has to show that its apprehension is reasonable. The apprehension must appear to the Court to be a reasonable apprehension.
This Court does not find any good ground to show interference.
The petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 29.1.2021 Sachin