WALIULLAH BEG Vs. DISTRICT DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CINSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of present writ petition, petitioners have challenged the impugned order dated 20.7.2012(Annexure no.1) passed by opposite party no.1/ Collector/ District Deputy Director of Consolidation, Lucknow . Sri M.A. Siddiqui, learned counsel for the petitioners while challenging the impugned order submits that aggrieved by the order passed by the Consolidation Officer , Mohanlalganj, Lucknow, petitioners filed a revision under Section 48 of the Consolation of Holdings Act before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Lucknow for redressal of their grievances. He further submits that during the pendency of present writ petition, contesting respondents moved an application for transfer of the matter from the Court of Deputy Director of Consolidation, Lucknow on 20.7.2012 as per the provisions as provided under Rule 65(1-A) of the U.P. Consolidation and Holding Rules, 1954 ( hereinafter referred to as 'Rules) and on the same day without issuing any notice to the revisionists/petitioners the revision pending before Deputy Director of Consolidation, Lucknow has been transferred by means of impugned order passed by District Deputy Director Consolidation, District Lucknow/opposite party no.1 to the Court of Additional District Magistrate ( Finance & revenue), Lucknow/ opposite party no.2.

(2.) IN view of the above said facts, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that impugned order in question is in contravention to principles of natural justice as no opportunity whatsoever has been given to the petitioners, as well as in contravention to the law as laid down by this Court in the case of Smt. Vandana Sinha Vs. Yogendra Sinha, 1982 A.L.J. 253 and Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Vivekananda Nidhi and others Vs. Asheema Goswami (Smt),(2000) 10 Supreme Court Cases, 23. Accordingly, he prays that the impugned order in question may be set aside and the matter may be transferred to the Court of Deputy Director of Consolidation/ opposite party no.3 to decide the same within the time frame as fixed by this Court and till then parties may be directed to maintain status quo as exits today. Sri Rajendra Kumar Yadav, learned State Counsel has no objection to the above said prayer.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners for the purpose of interim relief submits that? an application? for transfer of the matter? from the Court of? Deputy Director of Consolidation, Lucknow has been made by the contesting respondents invoking the provisions as provided under Rule 65(A-1) of the U.P. Consolidation and holding Rules 1954 on 20.7.2012.? On the said date , without issuing any notice? and without providing any? opportunity of hearing? to the? petitioners ,? opposite party no.1/ District Deputy Director of Consolidation, Lucknow passed the? impugned order? thereby transferring the matter? to the Court of? Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue) Lucknow. Accordingly , it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order passed by opposite party no.1 is contrary ito law and violative of principles of natural justice? as well as the law as laid down by this Court in the case of Umesh? Chandra Bharadwaj, Kanpur Vs. Mahesh Chandra Sharma Biswan? and others , AIR 1983 Allahabad 290.