Krishna Murari, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner.
(2.) AGGRIEVED by the order dated 12.11.2008 rejecting the application seeking transfer of the proceedings from the Court of Deputy Director of Consolidation to some other Court of competent jurisdiction, the. petitioner has approached this Court. Transfer of the proceedings has been sought on the ground that opposite party is a practicing advocate and the Court is acting under his influence. Al though there is no material on record to substantiate the allegation made in the transfer application but since allegations have been made against the Presiding Offi cer it would be appropriate and in the fit ness of the thing that the proceedings may not continue before the said authority and may be transferred to some other Court of competent jurisdiction so that not only jus tice may be done but may also seem to have been done. Considering the facts and circum stances, the impugned order 12.11.2008 rejecting transfer application stands quashed.
(3.) THE writ petition as well as trans fer application stand allowed. The proceedings of revision No. 1086 (Ramdaras v. Paras Nath and others) pending in the Court of Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gorakhpur stands transferred to be decided by the District Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gorakhpur.;