Allahabad High Court
Prem Lata vs Director Of Consolidation And ... on 5 October, 2012
Bench: Ran Vijai Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 18
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 51942 of 2012
Petitioner :- Prem Lata
Respondent :- Director Of Consolidation And Others
Petitioner Counsel :- Atul Kumar Singh
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ran Vijai Singh,J.
This writ petition has been filed with the following prayers:
"1. to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 1 to decide the transfer application of the petitioner pending before respondent no. 1.
2. To, issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 1 to call for records of revision no. 406/421 Smt. Dayawati and another Vs. Pramod Kumar and others and revision no. 277/794/629 Omkar and others Vs. Ram Kumar and others pending in the court of Deputy Director of Consolidation, Saharanpur.
3. To, issue a writ, order or direction in the suitable nature which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper to stay the further proceeding or misc. case no. 102/2012 (Smt. Anita Vs. Deepak) during the pendency of this writ petition before this Hon'ble Court.
4. award the cost of the petition to the petitioner."
Heard Sri Madhusudan Dixit, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the revision no. 406/421 (Smt. Dayawati and Another Vs. Pramod Kumar and Others) filed by the petitioner was pending before the Court of Deputy Director of Consolidation, but later on, it was transferred to Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue), Saharanpur and there, very frequent dates are given of the short duration. The allegation is that the Peshkar of the Court concerned is liaisoning with the other side and that is why, short dates are being fixed. Taking that ground, the petitioner has filed the transfer application for transferring the case from Saharanpur to some other district. In his submissions, in case the transfer application is not decided and the revision is dismissed, the petitioner will be put to irreparable loss and injury. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that along with transfer application, an application staying the proceeding of the revision has also been filed, but neither any order has been passed on the stay application nor on the transfer application.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, it is provided that the transfer application of the petitioner be decided either by respondent no. 1 or any other officer competent to decide the same within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order of this Court. It is also provided that respondent no. 1 or the authority competent shall make all endeavour to pass an appropriate order as early as possible on the stay application filed by the petitioner.
With the aforesaid observation / direction, this writ petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 5.10.2012
Amit Mishra
