Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:3770 Court No. - 8 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 41 of 2025 Petitioner :- Tikaram Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue , Lucknow And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar,Chandra Prakash,Muzammil Asad Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice on behalf of State-respondent nos.1 to 4 has been accepted on behalf of Office of Chief Standing Counsel. 2. Under challenge is the order dated 18.11.2024, whereby the respondent no.3 has rejected the transfer application preferred by the petitioner seeking transfer of the proceedings from the Court of Consolidation Officer-I, Lakhimpur Kheri to some other Court. 3. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner does not have hope of getting any justice from the Court of Consolidation Officer-I, Lakhimpur Kheri and in such circumstances the petitioner had moved an application for transfer, which has been rejected by the DDC on insufficient grounds and non appreciation of the facts as stated by the petitioner in his transfer application. 4. Having considered the aforesaid submissions and from perusal of material on record including the application for transfer, which has been brought on record, as Annexure no.3, it would indicate that in paragraph 2 and 4 vague assertions have been made. In paragraph 4 of the transfer application it is mentioned that some recall application was pending before the Consolidation Officer whereas, as per the prayer the petitioner sought transfer of the objections pending in the Court of Consolidation Officer-I, Lakhimpur Kheri. 5. In this regard, a specific query was put to learned counsel for the petitioner who in response informed the Court that earlier the objections preferred under Section 9-A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 was dismissed for want of prosecution, however, upon application for restoration having been moved the same was allowed on 14.12.2007, as indicated in paragraph 3 of the written submissions filed by the petitioner before the Consolidation Officer. 6. Taking note of the aforesaid, apart from the fact that vague allegations have been levelled, this court finds that there is variance in the averments made in paragraph 2 and 4 and this fact that the restoration stood allowed was also not mentioned in the transfer application and an impression is given that the transfer application is against the restoration application. 7. Considering the averments made in paragraph 2 of the transfer application, it appears that the petitioner is harbouring an artificial adversity, however, no order sheets have been brought on record to indicate as to what is the cause of not deciding the proceedings despite the petitioner, as alleged, had filed his written submissions before the court concerned. This has been noticed by the DDC while rejecting the application for transfer and this Court is of the opinion that there is no palpable error in the order passed by the DDC rejecting the transfer application which may require the interference of this Court. 8. For the aforesaid reasons, petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. (Jaspreet Singh, J.) Order Date :- 21.1.2025 Arnima Digitally signed by :- ARNIMA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench