- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Ramendra Asthana, and Sri Ashok Gupta for the respondent Nos. 3 and 5. It is not necessary to issue notice to the other respondents at this stage in view of the fact that this is a contest in relation to a transfer application having been filed by the petitioner under Rule 65 of the U.P. Consolidation of Land Holdings Rules, 1954. The background, in which the transfer application was moved before the Collector is that the revision, which was filed against the order of Settlement Officer of Consolidation dated 15.8.2010 was pending consideration. The contesting respondent was pressing hard for the decision of the revision on the ground that the petitioner Rishi Kumar Sahu is trying to linger on the matter.
(2.) According to the order sheet, it appears that the date was fixed on 19.1.2010, on which date, the petitioner again sought an adjournment and the next date fixed was 27.1.2010. On that date, a general date was fixed for 10.2.2010, where upon the respondent, who is the revisionist filed his written arguments and advanced his submissions. The petitioner sought time to give reply to the same and the order sheet dated 10.2.2010 as maintained, and a copy whereof has been filed at page No. 33 of the present paper book, indicates that the next date fixed was 16.2.2010. The said order no-where indicates the passing of any interim order. The allegation of the petitioner is that the Deputy Director of Consolidation was biased and he entertained a stay application at his residence and on that application the stay order was endorsed, staying the operation of the order dated 5.12.2008 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation. The petitioner, therefore, filed a transfer application alleging malafides and bias against the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Sri Roshan Lal. The Collector/District Deputy Director of Consolidation in exercise of the powers conferred under Rule 65 of the U.P. Consolidation of Land Holdings Act, 1954, rejected the transfer application on the ground that there is no material available in order to exercise the powers for transferring the matter to some other officer. Shri Asthana submits that there was material, which was sufficient to infer the bias of the Deputy Director of Consolidation, in as much as justice should not only be done but should also seem to have been done. The Deputy Director of Consolidation behind the back of the petitioner entertained the stay application at His residence and passed the interim order in favour of the contesting respondent, which was a sufficient indication of bias and mala fide both. Sri Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents has invited the attention of the Court to the comments send by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, copy whereof is annexed as Annexure 10 to the writ petition and has urged that the Deputy Director of Consolidation had given his explanation to the Collector and even otherwise, he had indicated that the matter can be transferred to any other officer to which he has no objection. He further submitted that he has no objection to the matter being transferred with a direction that the revision itself be disposed of within a specified period and the matter may not be lingered on by the petitioner.
(3.) Having heard learned counsel for the parties and in view of the submissions raised, the order sheet dated 10.2.2010 no-where records the passing of the interim order. It is, therefore, evident that the said order was passed behind the back of the petitioner. This aspect sufficiently creates an apprehension in the mind of the petitioner. The Collector should have transferred the said matter to some other officer. Accordingly, the Collector fell into an error in rejecting the transfer application and having not taken notice of the aforesaid apprehension in the mind of the petitioner, has failed to observe the discretion available under Rule 65 of the U.P. Consolidation of Land Holdings Rules, 1954. Accordingly, the order dated 7th February, 2012 is set aside with a direction to the Collector to either hear the revision himself or any other officer entitled and empowered to hear the same other than Sri Roshan Lal. The matter stands remitted forthwith and the revision shall be disposed of by the concerned officer preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of the order before the Court. With the aforesaid observations, writ petition is allowed.;