DEORAJ Vs. PURKHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application has been filed by the applicant praying for transfer of an application pending before Shri Tulsiram Acharya, Assistant Settlement cum Record Officer, Jodhpur to some other competent officer under Sec. 233 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 .

(2.) A preliminary objection was raised by the learned counsel for the opposite party as to the maintainability of the application under the aforesaid section on the ground that the provisions of the Tenancy Act did not apply to matters relating to the correction of land records etc. The learned counsel for the applicant conceded that the application was in fact incorrectly filed under sec. 233 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act and that the correct law on the subject was given in sec. 53 of the Land Revenue Act. It appears that a similar application was presented to the Addl Settlement Commissioner, for transfer of the proceedings from the court of the said officer to some other court and that the same was rejected by the learned Addl. Settlement Commissioner by an order, dated 3.7.56 on the ground that the applicant failed to satisfy him that he had a reasonable apprehension for not getting a fair trial in the court of the aforesaid officer. Being not content with this order the applicant has filed a fresh application before us in which he has reiterated almost the same grounds on which he sought an order of transfer and which was rejected by the learned Addl. Commissioner. We have looked into the application filed by the applicant before us in which he has stated in a rather vague and indiscreet manner as to how Mr. Acharya was acting under an influence of one Gokaldas who is party to these proceedings. The reply received from Mr. Acharya is also on the file in which he has categorically denied all the wild allegations made against him by the applicant. He has, however, stated that he had no objection if the case was transferred to some other court. In order to justify an order of transfer it is essential that the applicant must satisfactorily prove that from the conduct of the court he had a reasonable apprehension in his mind that he will not get justice at his hands. This is perhaps the minimum requirement contemplated by law. In the application before us there is not a word which might lead us to believe that there was any justification for having any such apprehension in the mind of the applicant. The mere fact that the trial court gave short adjournments or saddled the applicant with costs or that a particular person who is not connected with the case is found attending the court especially on the dates when the plaintiffs case is heard by the court cannot in our opinion constitute a sufficient cause for invoking powers under sec. 53 of the Land Revenue Act. In the result the application is rejected.