HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - B No. - 873 of 2025 Court No. - 5 HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J. 1. Heard Sri Anil Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 3. 2. In light of the proposed order, notices to private respondents are dispensed with. 3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that a revision was preferred by the petitioner against the order of Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 16.07.2018 which was pending consideration. During the said proceedings, Hem Kumari w/o Jagdish Prasad died and was substituted by her legal heirs. 4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that after notice having been issued to the newly impleaded respondents, the Dy. Director of Consolidation should have granted time to newly impleaded parties to file objections to the revision but instead of doing so, he fixed 30th January, 2025 as a date for hearing. 5. It is in the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner who was the revisionist moved an application for transfer U/S 65(1-A) of the Consolidation of Holding Rules, 1954 praying for transfer of the proceedings from the Court of Dy. Director of Consolidation to any other court. The application for transfer has been rejected by means of order dated 19.08.2025 which has been assailed in the present case. 6. The only ground urged by the petitioner before Dy. Director of Consolidation was that after newly respondents had put in appearance in the Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Anil Kumar Shukla Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Nanhu And 2 Others .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt., Lko. And Others .....Respondent(s) revision no time was granted to them to file the objections to the revision. This Court see no reason as to how the petitioners could have been pre- judiced by the respondents not having been granted time to file the objection inasmuch as the newly impleaded parties never made such an objection before the revisional court. 7. In case any person would have been aggrieved by such an action, it was the newly impleaded respondents but this Court failed to see as to how the petitioner who is the revisionist before the Dy. Director of Consolidation could have been aggrieved by such an action. 8. In the impugned order, it is further recorded to expedite the hearing of the case, the parties were directed to submit the written submissions and accordingly in this regard also in the impugned order the Dy. Director of Consolidation has not found any infirmity with the directions issued by the revisional authority. 9. Considering the aforesaid facts as well as the arguments made by the petitioner, this Court is of the considered view that a case can be transferred only when there is a real and apparent apprehension of bias or any cogent reason is demonstrated that a party would not get justice from the court for which the application for transfer is made. 10. In the present case, this Court does not find any cause, real or apparent, having been made out on the basis of which the petitioner has moved an application for transfer of the proceedings from the court of Dy. Director of Consolidation. This Court failed to see as to how the petitioner would be pre-judiced in case the newly impleaded respondents have not been given time to file their objections or that written submissions have been asked from the parties at the stage of final hearing. 11. Accordingly, this Court finds that the writ petition is bereft of any merits and no ground is made out for interfering with the order impugned. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. September 9, 2025 Ravi/ WRIB No. 873 of 2025 2 (Alok Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench