- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.
(2.) This Court has earlier passed an order dated 18.11.2019. The relevant portion of which is reproduced herein below: "Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that by means of the order dated 21.12.2018 passed in Writ Petition No. 37934 (Consolidation) of 2018, the case under Sections 12 and 9-A of the Consolidation of Holdings Act were decided in favour of the opposite party no.2 and objection filed by the petitioners was rejected. Therefore, the petitioners had filed an appeal bearing No. 1548 under Section 11(1) of the U.P.C.H. Act before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Ayodhya. After hearing both the parties, the said appeal has been admitted and the order passed by the lower court has been stayed till the next date of listing by means of the order dated 09.08.2019. Thereafter, the opposite party no.2 filed an objection for transfer of the appeal which was registered as T.A. No. 724 of 2019. The application was filed alleging therein that the relative of the petitioners and the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, who has passed the order are of one and the same place in Sultanpur. It was specifically denied by the petitioner in the objection filed against the said application. Objection was filed by the petitioners, but without considering the same and merely on the basis of the apprehension of the opposite party no.2, the appeal has been transferred from Ayodhya to Barabanki by means of the order dated 06.11.2019. The transfer is at a distance of about 200 kilometres, therefore, the petitioner would face difficulty in contesting the appeal. He further submitted that the order has been passed by the Additional Commissioner of Consolidation, Lucknow while under the Rule, the transfer can be made only by the Director of Consolidation, therefore this order is without jurisdiction also. Shri Ram Swaroop, learned Standing Counsel for the opposite party no.1 and Shri Rama Pati Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent no.2. pray for and are granted three days' time to seek instructions. List on 20.11.2019 as fresh. Till the next date of listing, the operation and implementation of the order dated 06.11.2019 passed by the Addl. Commissioner of Consolidation, Lucknow in T.A. No. 724 of 2019 shall remain stayed. The interim order shall not be extended on the next date without hearing."
(3.) Thereafter when the case was listed before this Court on 20.11.2019, this Court passed a detailed order. The relevant portion of which is quoted as under: "In the instructions that have been sent on the query of the Court, it has come out that under Section 3(4), the definition of Consolidation Commissioner has been shown, which includes and Additional Commissioner and a Joint Commissioner also. Moreover, the Consolidation Commissioner by an order no.325/E-123/2019 (Karya Vibhajan) dated 8.5.2019 has delegated the power to transfer cases under Rule 65(2) to the Additional Commissioner. This Court has seen the work allocation order dated 8.5.2019 annexed along with the said instructions dated 19.11.2019. The instructions dated 19.11.2019 are being taken on record. Apparently, the Additional Commissioner, Consolidation was empowered both under the Act and the Rules to exercise the power of transfer. Such a transfer has, therefore, been made. However, with regard to wrongful exercise of power of transfer, the petitioners' contention that the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Ayodhya is related to the petitioners being taken into account for such transfer, there is no instructions available with the learned Standing Counsel. Learned Standing Counsel shall seek instructions from the Consolidation Officer with regard to whether the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Ayodhya, who was considering the appeal, was indeed related to the petitioners in any manner or that he belongs to District Sultanpur as alleged. List this matter after three days on Monday i.e. 25.11.2019. Interim order, if any, granted earlier by this Court is extended till the next date of listing.";