HON'BLE ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA,J. - (1.) Heard Shri Kunal Ravi Singh for the petitioner and Shri R.C. Singh for the respondent no. 8, Kanti Devi. The instant writ petition is directed against the order dated 19.12.2018 passed by the Joint Director of Consolidation and the order dated 15.01.2019 passed by the respondent no. 3. By order dated 19.12.2018, the Joint Director of Consolidation has allowed a transfer application filed by respondent no. 8, Kanti Devi and transferred a revision pending before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Budaun to Moradabad. An application for recall of this order filed by the petitioner has been rejected vide order dated 15.01.2019. Hence this writ petition challenging the aforesaid two orders. The submission of counsel for the petitioner is that the transfer order dated 19.12.2018 was passed ex-parte without any notice or information to the petitioner and without hearing him. In fact the transfer application was allowed the day it was filed. Since the order was manifestly ex-parte, the petitioner filed a recall application which has been rejected relying upon Section 44-A of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.
(2.) It is also submitted that while rejecting the recall application the respondent has misconstrued a judgment of this Court in Writ B No. 55839 of 2014 (Surendra Pal Singh Vs. Addl. Director Consolidation Judicial and 6 others). Elaborating further, it has been submitted that a transfer application had been filed by the respondent before the District Deputy Director of Consolidation, which was rejected on 07.12.2018. The said order was never challenged by the respondent. However, five days later, a transfer application was filed before the Joint Director of Consolidation, whereupon the order dated 19.12.2018 was passed and the transfer application allowed, ex-parte. It is contended that under the circumstances shelter of Section 44-A of the U.P.C.H. Act could not have been taken by the Joint Director of Consolidation for allowing the transfer application or for rejecting the recall application. Under Rule 65(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules, the power to transfer a revision vests in the District Deputy Director of Consolidation. This power had been invoked by the respondent no. 8 but the relief prayed for, was refused by the District Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 07.12.2018. Therefore and since with regard to the same case, the power under Rule 65(2) was invoked but relief refused, it was not open for the Joint Director of Consolidation to transfer the case taking shelter of Section 44-A of the Act. Shri R.C. Singh appearing for respondent no. 8 has submitted that the transfer application was necessitated because a Minister in the State Government had written letters to the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Budaun and, therefore, the respondent had no hope of getting justice from his Court.
(3.) It is also submitted that the petitioner is only interested in delaying the disposal of the revision while the respondent no. 8 is only interested in its speedy disposal. He has additionally submitted that the revision may be transferred to any other district as per the choice of the petitioner or in the alternative the District Deputy Director of Consolidation may be directed to dispose of the revision, expeditiously, in a time bound manner. In rejoinder, counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is a handicapped person and, therefore, transfer of the revision to any other district will be extremely problematic for him. I have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties and perused the record. ;