Writ petition challenging dismissal of a transfer application seeking to move a case from one Revenue Appellate Authority to another. The court held unsubstantiated allegations of bias do not justify transfer and found no jurisdictional error or perversity in the order below.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[2026:RJ-JP:3079]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1054/2026
Shriram S/o Sh. Banshidhar, R/o Juliyasar, Tehsil Laxmangarh District Sikar (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
(2 of 5)
[2026:RJ-JP:3079]
[CW-1054/2026]
(3 of 5)
[2026:RJ-JP:3079]
[CW-1054/2026]
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Asgar Khan For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 22/01/2026
(4 of 5)
[2026:RJ-JP:3079]
[CW-1054/2026]
intent to unfairly benefit the non-applicant-respondent No.1. Even though it is true that judicial process must be credible, but no party should be permitted to make unsubstantiated allegations against the presiding officer merely to seek transfer of the case.
Ors.1 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under:
"7. In Gurcharan Das Chadha v. State of Rajasthan, (1966) 2 SCR
678, dealing with the issue for transfer of a case, it was observed: "13....The law with regard to transfer of cases is well- settled. A case is transferred if there is a reasonable apprehension on the part of a party to a case that justice will not be done. A Petitioner is not required to demonstrate that justice will inevitably fail. He is entitled to a transfer if he shows circumstances from which it can be inferred that he entertains an apprehension and that it is reasonable in the circumstances alleged. It is one of the principles of the administration of justice that justice should not only be done but it should be seen to be done. However, a mere allegation that there is apprehension that justice will not be done in a given case does not office. The Court has further to see whether the apprehension is reasonable or not. To judge of the reasonableness of the apprehension the State of the mind of the person who entertains the apprehension is no doubt relevant but that is not all. The apprehension must not only be entertained but must appear to the Court to be a reasonable apprehension."
8. The apprehension of not getting a fair and impartial enquiry or trial is required to be reasonable and not imaginary, based upon
1 (2018) 6 SCC 358
(5 of 5)
[2026:RJ-JP:3079]
[CW-1054/2026]
conjectures and surmises. No universal or hard and fast Rule can be prescribed for deciding a transfer petition, which will always have to be decided on the facts of each case...."
(Emphasis Supplied)
(MANEESH SHARMA),J
SOURAV /31
2 issues framed by the court
Was the Board of Revenue's dismissal of the petitioner's transfer application liable to be quashed for lack of substantiated apprehension of bias?
Did the impugned order suffer from jurisdictional error or perversity warranting interference under Article 227?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Harita Sunil Parab Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors.Relied on¶6
1 (2018) 6 SCC 358 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Shriram S/o Sh. Banshidhar
Anil Kumar, Land Record Officer Cum Ex-Officio Revenue Appeal Authority, Sikar
Sarasvati Devi
Mahaveer Prasad, S/o Late Gajanand
Maneesh Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
