Allahabad High Court
Lallu Devi Alias Kamla Devi vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief ... on 21 April, 2023
Bench: Saurabh Lavania
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 18
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 1415 of 2023
Petitioner :- Lallu Devi Alias Kamla Devi
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. (Revenue), Civil Sectt. Lko. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Suresh Chandra Srivastava,Awadhesh Kumar Misra
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Dr. Krishna Singh, learned State counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Sri Angrej Nath Shukla, Advocate, who has filed Vakalatnama on behalf respondent No. 4 in the Court today, which is taken on record.
By means of this petition, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 19.12.2022 passed by the respondent No. 2/Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gonda on an application seeking transfer of the case registered as Case No. 2725 of 2022, Computerized Case No. D202208300002725 (Lallu @ Kamla Devi vs. Kalawati), which was filed under Section 65 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (in short "Act of 1953"). A consequential relief has also been sought in this petition, which is to the effect that respondent No. 2 be directed to transfer the proceedings, in issue, before the respondent No. 3/Consolidation Officer (Naveen), Gonda.
Assailing the impugned order dated 19.12.2022, it is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the application seeking transfer preferred by the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the same is barred by the principles of res-judicata. The principle of res-judicata would not attract in the matter of transfer of a case, as observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in para 8 of the judgment dated 29.01.2021 passed in the case of Amruta Ben Himanshu Kumar Shah vs. Himanshu Kumar Pravinchandra Shah reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 46, as such, interference is called for in the matter.
This Court considered the impugned order as also the application preferred by the petitioner for transfer of the case, on which the impugned order has been passed.
From a perusal of the application seeking transfer, it appears that the petitioner has made certain allegations against the Presiding Officer, which are to the effect that the Presiding Officer without hearing the applicant had posted the matter for orders as also that he is in influence of the respondent concerned, however, to substantiate the same, nothing has been brought on record of this petition.
It further transpires from the order impugned that to substantiate the averments made in the application seeking transfer of the case, nothing was brought on record of the Authority concerned. Accordingly, the respondent No. 2 in the impugned order dated 19.12.2022 has observed that "??????? ?????? ???? ??? ?? ?????? ??? ??? ??????? ?????? ???????? ???? ???? ??? ??" and prior to this, it has also been observed in the impugned order that on earlier occasions, the cases moved regarding transfer of the case have been rejected vide orders dated 03.11.2021 and 15.06.2022. Thereafter, the respondent No. 2 has also observed that the application is barred by the principles of res-judicata. This observation, to the view of this Court, would be contrary to the principles settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in this regard, if the concerned preferred an application/petition on different allegations, however, in this case, the facts from which it can be gathered that the application in issue was preferred on different allegations have not been pleaded in this petition, as such, this Court is not inclined to entertain this petition for the prayers sought for the following reasons:-
(i) Twice the petitioner had approached the appropriate Authority for transferring the case and on both the occasions, the applications/cases preferred by her were dismissed vide orders dated 03.11.2021 and 15.06.2022, respectively.
(ii) In regard to the allegations made in the application seeking transfer annexed with this petition, nothing has been brought on record by the petitioner so as to substantiate the allegations made in it.
(iii) Allegations against the concerned officer appears to be vague.
(iv) Consecutive application for transfer itself shows that the petitioner is avoiding the proceedings related to Section 109 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954.
It is settled principal of law that merely suspicion by the party that he will not get justice would not justify transfer. There must be a reasonable apprehension to that effect. A judicial order made by a Judge legitimately cannot be made foundation for a transfer of case. Mere presumption of possible apprehension should not and ought not be the basis of transfer of any case from one case to another. It is only in very special circumstances, when such grounds are taken, the Court must find reasons exist to transfer a case, not otherwise. Reference can be made to the judgment dated 12.11.2014 passed in Transfer Application (Civil) No. 519 of 2014 (Amit Agarwal vs. Atul Gupta).
Upon due consideration of the aforesaid, the present petition, which relates to the transfer of the case, is dismissed.
Order Date :- 21.4.2023
Arun/-
