Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:35237 Court No. - 49 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 4692 of 2024 Petitioner :- Ram Wajir Rao Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Manoj Kumar Pandey,Mohan Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Shrawan Kumar Tripathi Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J. 1. Heard Mr. Awaneesh Kumar, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Mohan Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner at considerable length and Mr. Shrawan Kumar Tripathi, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 4 and 5. 2. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 18.11.2024 passed by the District Deputy Director of Consolidation/Collector, Basti, rejecting the petitioner's application seeking transfer of Revision No. 560 of 2023, Smt. Vidyawati vs. Satyapal Rao and others, from the Court of the Deputy Director of Consolidation to some other Court of competent jurisdiction. The Collector, Basti, by the order impugned, has said that the allegations are vague and hearsay. 3. A perusal of the transfer application moved before the District Deputy Director of Consolidation/Collector, Basti under Rule 65 (1-A) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954 shows that the allegation, on the foot of which transfer is prayed, goes to the effect that the petitioner had seen the respondents-opposite parties to the revision frequent the Chamber of the Presiding Officer's Reader. It is also said that the respondents had threatened that they would get the case decided in their favour, and, that in this connection, the matter has been settled with the Reader. The next allegation is that in these circumstances, the petitioner has no faith in the impartiality of the Court and did not expect justice from the Deputy Director of Consolidation. 4. Ex facie, there is no basis to the allegation that the petitioner has come up with before this Court. The allegations are based on wild conjectures with no tangible material or circumstance to infer any collusion between respondent nos. 4 & 5 and the Presiding Officer. It is, no doubt, true that the Collector in rejecting the petitioner's transfer application has been way too brief in assigning the reasons. somuch so, that the reasons given by him are marginally intelligible. Still, it cannot be said that there are no reasons given at all. The Collector's order reflects that he has regarded the allegations to be conjectural, which he has chosen to describe as hearsay. Brevity is a virtue, but not to an extent that it effaces existence of the idea intended to be expressed. 5. Be that as it may, upon a perusal of the transfer application and the entire circumstances, we agree with the Collector that the allegations are entirely without basis and based on mere conjecture. There is nothing circumstantial also to lend any credence to what the petitioner suspects. We do not find any ground to interfere in the order impugned. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. The interim order dated 07.02.2025 is hereby vacated. 7. Let this order be communicated to the District Deputy Director of Consolidation/Collector, Basti and the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Basti, where the case is pending through the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Basti by the Registrar (Compliance). Order Date :- 11.3.2025 Deepak Digitally signed by :- DEEPAK KUMAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad