Allahabad High Court
Pashupati vs Board Of Revenue And 2 Others on 14 July, 2021
Bench: Dinesh Pathak
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 21
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 890 of 2021
Petitioner :- Pashupati
Respondent :- Board Of Revenue And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Navin Kumar Pandey,Manu Sharma
Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Petitioner has shown his grievance against order dated 28.01.2021 (Annexure-1) passed by the Board of Revenue, U.P. at Lucknow (respondent no.1) by which transfer application moved by the respondent no.3 was allowed and review petition pending before the Presiding Officer concerned was transferred to another Review Bench of the Board of Revenue.
Facts giving rise to this petition remains that a suit under Section 229B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 was initially decreed in the year 1994. Against that judgment one restoration application was moved which was allowed vide order dated 01.12.2005. The aforesaid order passed on restoration application was assailed in revision before the Board of Revenue, which was allowed vide order dated 18.12.2018. Against order dated 18.12.2018, respondent no.3 has moved a review petition (Annexure-3). Vide order dated 10.02.2020, the aforesaid review petition was finally heard and judgment was reserved, but subsequently, vide order dated 28.05.2020, the concerned Presiding Officer has fixed the next date as 10.06.2020 for hearing of the matter, inasmuch as, the judgment could not be delivered due to lockdown in Covid-19 Pandemic. In the meantime, respondent no.3 has moved a transfer application before the Chairman, Board of Revenue to transfer the review petition before another Court, inasmuch as, he had apprehension that justice would not be done by the Court concerned.
Impugned order dated 28.01.2021 evinces that notice was issued to the present petitioner, who was opposite party in the review/transfer application, but he did not turn up and had not filed any objection to the transfer application. It also reveals that the concerned Member has filed reply in the aforesaid transfer application. After considering the reply submitted by the concerned Member, learned Chairman has allowed the transfer application in the interest of justice and placed the matter before Review Bench for final hearing of the review petition.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that impugned order dated 28.01.2021 passed by the respondent no.1 is a non speaking order, without assigning any cogent reason to transfer the matter from the Court of concerned officer. It is further submitted that baseless allegation has been made against the concerned officer which is not justifiable in the eyes of law and the allegations are not proved to the satisfaction of the Court concerned. It is further submitted that impugned order dated 28.01.2021 is an ex parte order which has been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the present petitioner.
I find no substance in the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. Impugned order dated 28.01.2021 itself reveals that notice was issued to the present petitioner but he did not turn up and matter was heard and decided ex parte. Impugned order evince that notice was issued to the concerned Member against whom allegation has been made by the respondent no.3 in his transfer application who has submitted his reply to the contents of the transfer application. Learned Chairman has passed the impugned order dated 28.01.2021 after considering the reply of the concerned Member (Judicial)/Presiding Officer.
Present writ petition is devoid of merits and is, accordingly, dismissed with no cost.
Order Date :- 14.7.2021
Manish Himwan
