ANIL KUMAR, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Badrish Tripathi, learned counsel for petitioners, learned State counsel as well as Sri Durga Prasad Verma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of contesting respondents and perused the record.
(2.) FACTS in brief of the present case are that an appeal No. 564 is pending before the Settlement Officer Consolidation, Ambedkar Nagar.? During the pendency of the appeal, an application under Rule 65(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules has been moved for transfer of the matter from the Court of Settlement Officer, Ambedkar Nagar registered as Transfer Application No. 560/2012 (Tulsi Ram and others Vs. Yashoda Devi ), rejected by order dated 04.04.2013 passed by O.P. No. 2/Joint Director of Consolidation, U.P., Lucknow.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for petitioners while challenging the impugned order has raised the argument that as the husband of O.P. No. 4/Smt. Yashoda Devi is a practicing lawyer in District Ambedkar Nagar, so he is in a position to exercise pressure and influence him/O.P. No. 3 , hence the petitioners have no hope to get justice in the matter, thus, the impugned order is wholly illegal and arbitrary in nature, liable to set aside. Sri Durga Prasad Verma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of contesting respondents submits that it is totally incorrect on the part of the petitioners to state that husband of O.P. No. 4 is practicing lawyer in District Ambedkar Nagar but he is practicing in Jalapur Tehsil, thus, no manner he can? influence the O.P.No. 3 where the appeal is pending for consideration, accordingly, the submission made by learned counsel for petitioners in support of trasnfer of the case? has got no force and no illegality has been done by the O.P.No. 2 while passing the impugned order, so the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.;