HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - B No. - 914 of 2025 Court No. - 5 HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondents no. 1 and 2 and Shri Ravi Shankar Singh, who has filed his power/ Vakalatnama for respondents no. 6 to 19, which is taken on record. 2. In view of the order proposed to be passed, notice to private respondents no. 3 to 5, is dispensed with. 3. The grievance raised by the petitioner that in the present case is against the order dated 26.8.2025, passed by the Commissioner Consolidation, U.P., Lucknow, whereby he has rejected the application for transfer of the appeal preferred by the private respondents, before the Settlement officer, Consolidation, Hardoi. 4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent no.4 had filed an appeal against the order dated 14.2.2025 passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Hardoi in Case No. 114 of 2025. He has submitted that before the filing of the said appeal the opposite party no.4 had moved an application on 19.2.2025 before the District Magistrate, Hardoi, threatening to self immolate herself, if she is unable to take justice. 5. It has been submitted that it is undue pressure which has been created by the opposite party no.4 int he said proceedings, he had moved an Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Raj Kumar Upadhyaya (R.K.Upadhyaya), Chandrika Prasad Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Ajay Kumar Singh @ Munna Singh .....Petitioner(s) Commissioner Consolidation,U.P. Lko. And Others .....Respondent(s) application for transfer dated 21.4.2025. He has submitted that instead of resorting to the normal course of issuing notice to opposite parties in the appeal, the appellate authority had directed the appellant for publication to effect service on the petitioner. He submits that this fact clearly indicate that Settlement Officer, Consolidation is acted under pressure and duress of the Authorities as well as the act of opposite party no.4 to immolate herself. 6. The Consolidation Commissioner has considered the allegation levelled by the petitioner and rejected the said application as he did not find any substance to either entertain or to act on the said application. The only ground raised by the petitioner is that due procedure has not been followed by the appellate authority while issuing summons to the petitioner. He submits that on the other mode of service should have exhausted before resorting to issuing resort to publication which should be last resort. It is noticed that int he present case it has been recorded by the Consolidation Officer that the notices were issued and thereafter order for publication was made. There is no denying fact that various mode has been described for effecting service on the opposite parties and usually the normal modes are exhausting before orders are passed for service by publication. Even if it is assumed that the order of the appellate authority is not strictly in accordance with law it cannot be presumed that the said order has been passed due to extraneous considerations. 7. I find that though the private respondents have threatened immolation by writing a letter but certainly there is no material to indicate that the Settlement Officer, Consolidation would succumb to such threats and decide the said case on the basis of such threats extended by the private respondents. The conduct of the private respondents is certainly not appreciated where once they have approached the Competent Authority with regard to their grievance, then the same grievance is required to be decided strictly in accordance with law and the litigant should restrain themselves resorting to such method to influence the court like a threat of immolate in case the matter is not decided as per his choice. 8. On the other hand this Court is also of the considered view that even if the request made by the petitioner for transfer of the case to any other WRIB No. 914 of 2025 2 district is permitted it shall not restrain the respondent no.4 from extending similar threats at the transferred place and the same issue will crop up yet again. Accordingly, to over come the apprehension of the petitioner, this Court is of the considered view that the matter deserves to be decided at the earliest. The petitioner undertakes to appear in the appellate proceedings and file his objections to the appeal preferred by the private respondents. 9. Counsel for the private respondents does not oppose the request of the petitioner for a suitable direction to the appellate authority to conclude the proceedings with expedition. 10. Accordingly, the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Hardoi shall proceed to consider and decide the appeal within the maximum period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced. The parties undertake to cooperate the case before the appellate authority to decide the case strictly in accordance with law. 11. With the aforesaid direction the petition stands disposed of. September 22, 2025 Muk WRIB No. 914 of 2025 3 (Alok Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHD UMAR KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench