- (1.) S. N. Srivastava, J. Present petition has its genesis in the orders dated 15-12-2005 passed by Deputy Director Consolidation and 29-9-2005 passed by Settlement Officer Consolidation.
(2.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Counsel for the caveator and learned Standing Counsel. Learned Counsel for the petitioner assailed the impugned orders on the ground that the orders are without jurisdiction inasmuch as the order dated 5-7-2005 is still intact and Settlement Officer Consolidation had no jurisdiction to pass any other order by which the effect of these orders could be emasculated or anulled. He further canvassed that Consolidation Officer natured bias and hence all the matters relating to allotment of chak be transferred to some other consolidation authority of competent jurisdiction. I have scanned the impugned orders as also the order dated 5- 7-2005 and also the materials on record and it would transpire the some persons filed some application before the Settlement Officer Consolidation premised on the allegations that the allotment of chak had already come to an end and that only five or six objections had come to be filed against the proposed allotment made by Consolidation Officer from whom the general public of village of Sikara Hakim Tappa Kapari Mahaso Tahsil and District Basti apprehended not to get justice. It would further appear that on the same application same order purporting to be order dated 5-7-2005 was passed transferring the entire jurisdiction from Consolidation Officer Sonupur to Consolidation Officer Munderwa. It would further transpire that the petitioner moved another application on 9-8-2005 with the self-same prayer to transfer the case to some other Consolidation Officer which came to be rejected by the Consolidation Officer after hearing all concerned parties and after reckoning with entire materials on record. The order received affirmance in the revision filed by the petitioner.
(3.) RULE 65 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings rule which deals with the transfer of cases being relevant is quoted below. "65. Section 54 (1) - The Settlement Officer, Consolidation, may withdraw any case from the file of any Consolidation Officer or Assistant Consolidation Officer subordinate to him and may refer the same for disposal to any other Consolidation Officer or Assistant Consolidation Officer competent to deal therewith. . . " From a punctilious reading of the above rule, it leaves no manner of doubt that the Settlement Officer Consolidation is clothed with the power to transfer any case from the file of any Consolidation Officer or Asstt. Consolidation Officer for disposal to any other Consolidation Officer or Asstt. Consolidation Officer. From a perusal of the order dated 5-7- 2005, it would crystallize that jurisdiction of competent Consolidation Officer having jurisdiction to consider and decide objections of tenure-holders against proposed allotment was transferred to other Consolidation Officers having no jurisdiction to decide such objections. This order appears to have been passed without issuing to concerned Consolidation Officer or without giving opportunity to other tenure-holders of the village. In my considered view such orders cannot be said to fall within the scope of RULE 65 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings RULEs which envisages that Settlement Officer Consolidation may withdraw any case from the file of any Consolidation Officer and may refer the same for disposal to any other Consolidation Officer but cannot pass any order to transfer the jurisdiction of the area to some other Consolidation Officer. However, in the facts of the present case where the Settlement Officer Consolidation has passed an order on 29th September, 2005, after hearing both the parties and considering each and every aspect, whereby transfer application was rejected on merits does not suffer from any error of law apparent on the face of the record. This order was rightly affirmed by the Deputy Director Consolidation. Further from a perusal of Supplementary affidavit, it is obvious that the self-same Consolidation officer had passed order on 3-2-2005 against Smt. Mewa wife of Ainullah on the application filed by the petitioner, which there is no denying by the petitioner, was passed on his application. This also goes to show that Consolidation Officer acted in accordance with law and rejected the application for transfer rightly observing that there was no substance in the allegations. It would also appear from a perusal of the allegations made in the application (Annexure-1 to the writ petition), that the allegations made were vague, bald and do not divulge requisite details.;