DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA,J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Manoj Sahu and Sri Kshemendra Shukla, learned counsel for the respondents.
(2.) This petition seeks to challenge the order dated 21.03.2017, passed by the Additional Director of Consolidation, U.P., Lucknow whereby the application preferred by the petitioners under Rule 65(2) of the Rules framed under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act seeking transfer of the case under Section 9A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules pending before the Consolidation Officer, Sadar, Faizabad, has been rejected.
(3.) Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the Presiding Officer concerned is prejudiced and is likely to act in a manner which may cause prejudice to the case of the petitioners pending before him. In respect of his submission, he has drawn attention of the Court to some order passed under Rule 109 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules which was passed for the purpose of giving effect to the judgment and order dated 16.12.2015 as corrected on 13.01.2016 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 349(Cons.) of 1995. It has further been stated that one lawyer and husband of respondent No. 3-Smt. Raj Kumari met the Presiding Officer in his chamber and, thus, the petitioners apprehend that the Consolidation Officer will not conduct himself impartially while deciding the case.;