HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 10943 of 2025 Court No. - 5 HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J. 1. Heard Shri Anshuman Singh Rathore, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondent no. 1. 2. In the light of the order proposed to be passed, notice to respondent no.2, is dispensed with. 3. The present writ petition has been filed with the following main relief:- "(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing the impugned order dated 02.09.2025 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Ayodhya Region, Ayodhya, in Transfer Application No. 2663/2025 (Computerized Case No. 202504000002663)." 4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had sold a piece of land in Gata No. 1568 to opposite party no.2 by registered sale deed dated 22.05.2014 area of 0.3160 hectares and also sold 0.2530 hectares to opposite party no.2 by sale deed dated 3.5.2017. 5. The dispute in the present case pertains to location of land sold by the petitioner in favour of opposite party no.2 and for this purposes an application under Section 30 of the U.P. Revenue Code was preferred by opposite party no.2 before the District Magistrate, Amethi. Subsequently an application for transfer has been moved before the Additional Commissioner by opposite party no.2, on which the order dated 2.9.2025 Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Anshuman Singh Rathore Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Dan Bahadur Singh .....Petitioner(s) Addl. Commissioner Judicial, Ayodhya Region, Ayodhya And Another .....Respondent(s) has been passed where the District Magistrate, Amethi has been restrained from finally deciding the dispute. The petitioner thereafter has appeared before the Additional Commissioner and also filed his objections. 6. It has been submitted by counsel for the petitioner that the order dated 2.9.2025 is illegal, arbitrary as without recording any reasons the proceedings of the trial court have been stayed. 7. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand has opposed the petition. It has been submitted that in case the application for transfer is admitted then the natural consequences of such an order will be of interfering in the proceedings and trial court in as much as in case the proceedings of the trial court are allowed to proceed in the trial, the transfer application itself would be rendered infructuous after adjudication of the dispute by the trial court. 8. Apart from the above, it is submitted that the petitioner had already appeared before the Additional Commissioner, where he had filed appropriate application and raised all the objections in this regard. 9. Considering the aforesaid rival contentions, this Court is of the considered view that the proceedings of transfer of the said case is pending before the Additional Commissioner, where the petitioner has already put in appearance. I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order to the extent that it has restrained the trial court for passing the prime order considering the fact that in case the transfer application has been admitted to say ought to be adjudicated and till the outcome of the said application is made, the trial court should not finally adjudicate the matter, so as the transfer application rendered infructuous. 10. I further find that all the ground raised by the petitioner in the present petition can be raised before the Additional Commissioner and accordingly I do not find it a case for interference in exercise of power under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 11. Subject to the aforesaid observations, I do not find any merits in the case, the writ petition is hereby dismissed. WRIC No. 10943 of 2025 2 12. However, it is expected that the Additional Commissioner should proceed to decide the the transfer application with expedition. November 27, 2025 Muk WRIC No. 10943 of 2025 3 (Alok Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHD UMAR KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench