Partly allowed

Vimla v. Addl. Commissioner Consolidation, Lucknow and Others

Allahabad HC21 Nov 2024WRIB/1125/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court quashed an order allowing a transfer of a land consolidation appeal. The transfer was based on merely presuming the newly appointed officer was biased without any evidence, despite the previous officer being transferred and the new application filed shortly thereafter as infructuous.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 05.11.2024 allowing the transfer application is quashed.

Vimla vs Addl. Commissioner Consolidation, Lucknow and… — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:76834

¶2

Court No. - 17

¶3

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 1125 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Vimla Respondent :- Addl. Commissioner Consolidation, Lucknow And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar Tiwari,Prabhakar Nath Mishra

¶5

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Jay Prakash Singh

¶6

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

¶7

With the consent of the parties, the writ petition is being decided finally at the admission stage itself.

¶8

The present writ petition has been preferred for quashing of the impugned order dated 05.11.2024, passed by opposite party no. 1 i.e. Additional Commissioner, Consolidation, U.P, Lucknow passed in Transfer Application No. 149/697/2024; Vijay Pal versus Vimla Devi under Section 65(2) of U.P. C.H. Rules.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that an appeal has been preferred by the petitioner before respondent no. 1 and prior to admission of an appeal, a transfer application was filed by respondent no. 3 i.e. brother of respondent no. 2, who are respondents in the appeal under Section 65(2) of the U.P. C.H. Rules. The said application has become infructuous by order dated 10.09.2024 as the Officer before whom the appeal was pending has been transferred.

¶10

It is further submitted that within 12 days, another transfer application has been preferred by respondent no. 2 merely on the basis of presumption, without enclosing or adducing any document in support of his submission along with the transfer application. The respondent no. 1, merely on the basis of apprehension of respondent no. 2, allowed the transfer application and transferred the case from district Ayodhya to district Barabanki.

¶11

It is further submitted that the petitioner, being a lady, both these brothers just to harass the petitioner moved applications for transfer.

¶12

On the other hand, Shri Jai Prakash Singh, learned counsel for respondent no. 2, who had filed the transfer application, has submitted that the respondent has no hope of getting justice or fair hearing in the appeal as the counsel for the petitioner is a resourceful person.

¶13

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, going through the records of the case, the position which emerges out in the present case is that the respondent no.

¶14

1 has passed the impugned order dated 05.11.2024, merely on the assumption/presumption of respondent no. 2, ignoring completely the fact that the earlier Officer before whom the appeal was pending was transferred and on 10.09.2024, the transfer application preferred by respondent no. 2 has been dismissed as infructuous and within 12 days of joining of the new incumbent/Officer, again alongwith the same allegations, the transfer application has been filed by respondent no. 2, the other brother of respondent no. 3.

¶15

On being asked from learned counsel for the parties that whether in between 10.09.2024 to 22.09.2024, the date on which transfer application was filed, any date was fixed in the appeal before the newly appointed Officer or the incumbent, who has joined, learned counsel from the copy of the ordersheets, which is available with the counsel for the petitioner, both the learned counsels have submitted that case was listed on 04.09.2024 and thereafter on 24.09.2024, meaning thereby that no date was fixed meaning thereby that when the case was not listed, then from where the presumption was drawn by respondent no. 2 regarding not getting justice from the newly joined Officer.

¶16

The judgments of this court in Misc. Single No. 23378 of 2021 (Jitendra Kumar versus Board of Revenue, U.P Lko and others) dated 26.10.2021and Writ B No. 855 of 2022 (Ram Ikbal versus Commissioner Consolidation, Sultanpur and others) dated 03.01.2023. The relevant portion of Writ B No. 855 of 2022 is quoted hereinbelow:-

¶17

''Opposing the prayer sought in the petition, learned counsel for the State-Sri Hemant Kumar Pandey as also Sri Pramod Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for private opposite parties stated that the transfer of a case from one court to other is quite a serious issue and cannot be dealt with in such a casual manner. It is submitted that even if there is modicum of apprehension in the mind of the applicant, the allegation raised in the transfer application should prima facie at least be corroborated and transfer of a case cannot be allowed merely on the whims of a litigant. Attention has been drawn to the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Ram Prakash vs. District Judge Balli and 16 Others reported in 2015(1) ARC 103, in which it has been held as follows:

¶18

The position as it stands is that merely on the basis of bald and vague allegations, the transfer application was moved and that too on the basis that the counsel for the other side is very resourceful and influential person and there could be no grievance nor any has been pointed out against the officer. In support of the averment made in the transfer application, neither before the respondent no. 1 any evidence or document was adduced nor before this court in the present writ petition.

¶19

Transfer of a case from one court to other is quite serious issue and cannot be dealt with in a casual manner

¶20

on the whims of a litigant. The allegations raised in the transfer application should be prima facie altleast be corroborated with the facts and as held in the case of Ram Prakash versus District Judge Balli and 16 others reported in 2015(1) ARC 103. The relevant portion of the said judgment is quoted hereinbelow:-

¶21

"8. Where a transfer is sought making allegations regarding integrity or influence etc. in respect of the Presiding Officer of the Court, this Court has to be very careful before passing any order of transfer.

¶22

9. In the matters where reckless false allegations are attempted to be made to seek some favourable order, either in a transfer application, or otherwise, the approach of Court must be strict and cautious to find out whether the allegations are bona fide, and, if treated to be true on their face, in the entirety of circumstances, can be believed to be correct, by any person of ordinary prudence in those circumstances. If the allegations are apparently false, strict approach is the call of the day so as to maintain not only discipline in the courts of law but also to protect judicial officers and maintain their self esteem, confidence and above all the majesty of institution of justice."

¶23

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the present writ petition is allowed.

¶24

The order dated 05.11.2024 is hereby quashed.

¶25

Order Date :- 21.11.2024 DiVYa

¶26

Digitally signed by :- DIVYA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Vimla v. Addl. Commissioner Consolidation, Lucknow and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vimla v. Addl. Commissioner Consolidation, Lucknow and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Dr. Ankit Gupta, Assistant Professer Vs Professor (Dr.) Arvind Rajvanshi Executive Director (E.D) Rae Bareli and 2 Others

Dinesh Chandra Vs Board of Revenue, Lucknow Thru. Member and 19 Others

Rekha Devi Vs Nayab Tehsildar Babaganj Tehsil Kunda District Pratapgarh and Another

Kaushlendra Pratap Srivastava Vs Sri Rakesh Kumar Mishra, Milk Commissioner, Dairy Development Lko. and Another

Khursheed Alam Vs Learned Court of Tehsildar, Tehsil Kunda, Pratapgarh and Others

Vimla Vs Addl. Commissioner Consolidation, Lucknow and Others