Raj Kumar Srivastava Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue, Lko. and Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:12447

Court No. - 8

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1751 of 2025

Petitioner :- Raj Kumar Srivastava Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Revenue, Lko. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rinku Verma,Aakash Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice on behalf of the respondents No.1 to 3 has been accepted by the office of the Chief Standing Counsel.

¶7

Under challenge is the order dated 13.01.2025, whereby the respondent No.2 has rejected an application preferred by the petitioner for transferring a mutation proceeding, pending before the Tehsil, Tehsil Hasanganj, District Unnao to some other Court having jurisdiction.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a supplementary affidavit, which is taken on record.

¶9

The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent No.3 is proceeding with the mutation case apparently under the influence of the private-respondents. The petitioner has a bonafide impression that he will not get justice from the said Court.

¶10

In the aforesaid circumstances, the case pending before the respondent No.3, may be transferred to some other Court.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner has also urged that in the impugned order, the grounds having been considered, which were pleaded in the petition, as such the order impugned is bad in the eyes of law.

¶12

The Court has considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and also perused the material on record.

¶13

The transfer application has been filed along with the supplementary affidavit, dated 18.10.2024. Primarily in Paragraphs 4 to 7, the ground raised by the petitioner is that in mutation proceedings, an interim order was passed by the Court

¶14

concerned restraining transfer of the disputed property. However, despite the private-respondents have executed a saledeed in favour of a third party.

¶15

It is further urged that the private-respondents are regular visitors of the chamber of the Presiding Officer concerned and in the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner has lost confidence and without affording an opportunity, the case has been fixed for judgment on 23.10.2024 and for the said reason, the application for transfer be allowed.

¶16

It has also been stated that earlier, an application was moved before the District Magistrate, Unnao for transfer and the same was rejected on 19.09.2024. Accordingly, with the aforesaid averments, the transfer application was moved.

¶17

This Court finds that the allegations in Paragraphs 4 to 7 are vague in nature. In case, if there is a violation of an interim order, an aggrieved party has right to take recourse as may be available to him in law. However, this itself does not create or give a ground for transfer of the proceedings.

¶18

A specific query was put to the learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether any measure has been taken by the petitioner after the sale-deed was executed despite an interim order to which it has been answered by him that a suit for cancellation of the sale-deed has been filed and is pending before the appropriate Court.

¶19

Be that as it may, once the proceedings have already been taken, the ground which has been taken by the petitioner in the transfer application cannot be a ground for transfer. The other averment that the private-respondents are regular visitors are absolutely vague without any particularity and the same cannot be given credence. Moreover, upon a perusal of the impugned order dated 13.01.2025, it would reveal that even before the respondent No.2, the petitioner and his counsel were not present to press the transfer application. An observation has been made that it appears that the petitioner is trying to linger the matter.

¶20

For the aforesaid reasons, this Court does not find that there is any merit in this petition, accordingly, the petition is dismissed .

¶21

Order Date :- 3.3.2025 Rakesh/-

¶22

Digitally signed by :- RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Raj Kumar Srivastava v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue, Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Kumar Srivastava v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue, Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Raj Kapoor Vs State of U.P. Thru. District Magistrate ,Balrampur and Others

Smt. Suvidha Devi Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation / Addl. Collector, Finance and Revenue, Sitapur and Others

Ram Teerath Vs the Court of Sub Divisional Officer, Tehsil Tarabganj, Gonda and Others

Rajendra Kumar Thru. Attorney Holder Ashutosh Pathak Vs Board of Revenue, U.P. Lko. Thru. Chairman and Others

Sharad Kumar Mishra and 7 Others vs Syed Sujat Husain and 8 Others

Avinash Verma and Others Vs Addl. Collector, Barabanki and Others