HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - B No. - 1059 of 2025 Court No. - 5 HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J. 1. Heard Sri Sunil Kr. Tiwari, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 4. 2. In light of the proposed order, notices to private respondents are dispensed with. 3. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 15.09.2025 passed by Board of Revenue in exercise of powers U/S 212 of U.P. Revenue Code. 4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that respondent No. 5 had moved an application U/S 35 (1) of U.P. Revenue Code. It has further been stated that the petitioner has been made the respondent in the said proceedings and also that an application for transfer was moved on the ground that the respondents are extremely influential and powerful persons due to which they can influence the presiding officer. 5. It was stated that a perusal of the proceedings would make it evident that the presiding officer is proceeding without following the prescription of law and therefore the proceedings U/S 35 of U.P. Revenue Code deserves to the transferred to some other district. 6. After hearing respondent No. 5, by means of impugned order, the Board of Revenue concurred with the assertions made by the applicant therein and transferred the matter from the court of Naib Tehsildar, Tehsil Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Madhuri Singh, Lalit Kumari Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Pradeep Kumar Verma .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Revenue, Lko. And Others .....Respondent(s) Nagar, District Raebareli to Tehsil Unchahar, District Raebareli. Accordingly, it is noticed that instead of transferring the proceedings to any place outside the district, he has transferred the proceedings within the district in another Tehsil. 7. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner was never made a party in the transfer application and submits that the proceedings ought to have been transferred outside the district as prayed by respondent no. 5. It is only on the strength of aforesaid grounds that the impugned order has been assailed. 8. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand has opposed the writ petition. He has submitted that firstly the petitioner had not moved any application for transfer and it is the application of respondent No. 5 which has been considered and allowed by Board of Revenue. He has submitted that even the petitioner does not oppose the transfer but he has prayed that Board of Revenue should have been allowed the application and transferred the proceedings to any place outside the district. 9. Considering the rival submissions, this Court is of the considered view that the allegations levelled by respondent no. 5 were duly considered by Board of Revenue and the proceedings were transferred from Court of Naib Tehsildar, Tehsil Nagar, District Raebareli to Tehsil Unchahar, District Raebareli. 10. Whenever any allegations are made against the presiding officer, the same have to be supported by cogent evidence and on the other hand it is duty of the Board of Revenue to see that justice is deemed to be done and in case there is a reasonable apprehension or doubt about integrity of the presiding officer, certainly necessary orders can be passed by him for transferring the matter to another court. 11. Though in the present case, the application has been made to transfer the proceedings outside the district but the proceedings were transferred within the same district itself and in case with regard to the said order, the respondent No. 5 was aggrieved, he would have certainly assailed the said order but he has not approached any superior court assailing the said order. WRIB No. 1059 of 2025 2 12. The petitioner on the other hand does not oppose the transfer but only oppose the fact that the pending matter ought to have been transferred outside the district rather than within the district. Once it is noticed that the petitioner has no objection with regard to the transfer of the case from the court where it is pending then he cannot argue that it has to be transferred to another district. The place of transfer would be the discretion of the Board of Revenue. 13. Accordingly, merely because the petitioner was not made a party or given an opportunity of hearing would not be fatal to the impugned order inasmuch as he would be afforded sufficient opportunity of hearing by this Court and all the grounds which would have been urged by him before the Board of Revenue apart from the fact that he does not oppose the transfer. Accordingly, in view of the above, this Court does not find any ground for interference and also considering the fact that the distance between two courts is around 30 kms. and it is certainly not inconvenient to the parties while on the other hand the matter stands transferred to another court as prayed by respondent No. 5. 14. In light of the above, no ground for interference is made out, the writ petition is accordingly dismissed. November 7, 2025 Ravi/ WRIB No. 1059 of 2025 3 (Alok Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench