Anil Kumar, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri M. E. Khan, learned Standing Counsel and perused the record. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 06.09.2011 passed by opposite party no.1/Additional Director of Consolidation (Pra.) U.P., Lucknow thereby rejecting the petitioner's application for transfer filed under Rule 65 (2) of U.P.C.H. Act.
(2.) The factual controversy involved in the present case is that the petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 12.12.2014 passed by Consolidation Officer, Sadar had preferred an appeal No.482/14-15 under Section 11 (1) of U. P. C. H. Act (hereinafter referred to as Act) before the opposite party no.2/Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Bahraich.
(3.) During the pendency of said appeal, on 25.07.2016, she moved an application for transfer of the matter from the Court of opposite party no.2 to another court under Rule 65 (2) of U.P.C.H. Act. Opposite party no.1 vide order dated 06.09.2011 had rejected the said application with the finding that the grounds which are taken by the petitioner for transfer of the matter in question are not sufficient and imaginary one.;