Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:85845 Court No. - 50 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 236 of 2023 Petitioner :- Ramesh Chandra Shukla And 2 Others Respondent :- Additional Consolidation Commissioner, U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anupam Shukla,Murli Dhar Mishra,Rashmi Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- Awadh Bihari Pandey,B.D. Shukla,Rakesh Kumar Shukla Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J. 1. Heard Mr. M.D. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. B.D. Shukla, Mr. Rakesh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the private respondent and learned Standing counsel for the State- respondents. 2. The instant writ petition has been filed for the following relief: "1. Issue a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 03.01.2023 passed by respondent No.1 in Annexure No.8 to this writ petition. 2. Issue a direction to the Deputy Director Consolidation Chitrakoot to transfer the records of all five consolidated revision Nos.141/11 Ramesh Chandra and others Vs. Sampatii Devi, 171/11 Ram Lakhan Vs. Ramesh Chandra and others, 172/11 Sampatti Devi Vs. Ramesh Chandra and others, 173 of 2011 Ram Lakhan Vs. Ramesh Chandra and others, 174/ 11 Rajh Kumari Vs.Sharda Prasad and others to the court of Deputy Director Consolidation Prayagraj forthwith. 3. Issue a direction to Deputy Director Consolidation Prayagraj to decide all the consolidated revisions expeditiously within a stipulated time." 3. This Court vide order dated 20.1.2023 entertained the matter & issued notice to the respondent nos. 3 to 5 as well as stayed the further proceeding of the pending revision. 4. In pursuance of the order dated 20.1.2023 parties have exchanged their pleadings. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that transfer application filed under Rule 65 (2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the U.P.C.H. Rules) was rejected under the impugned order dated 03.01.2023 but this Court stayed the further proceeding of the pending revision considering the prima facie case in favour of petitioner. He submitted that on the basis of the averment made in the transfer application filed on behalf of petitioners, the impugned order should be set aside and proceeding of pending revision should be transferred in District- Prayagraj. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the private respondent submitted that no interference is required against the impugned order passed by respondent no.1/ Additional Consolidation Commissioner U.P. Lucknow. He further submitted that earlier matter was transferred from Prayagraj to Chitrakoot as such the transfer application filed by petitioners to transfer the proceeding of pending revision from the court of Deputy Director of Consolidation, Chitrakoot to Court of Deputy Director of Consolidation Allahabad/ Prayagraj is abuse of process of law. He further submitted that matter is pending since long, as such the writ petition should be dismissed and pending revision should be decided in accordance with law. 7. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. There is no dispute about the fact that revision under section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act filed at the instance of petitioner is pending in the court of Deputy Director of Consolidation, Chitrakoot. There is also no dispute about the fact that earlier proceeding of appeal under section 11 (1) of U.P.C.H. Act was transferred from Allahabad to District-Chitrakoot as such revision has been filed by petitioners at District-Chitrakoot. There is no dispute about the fact that Writ B No.35631 of 2015 filed by petitioners to transfer the proceeding of revision from Chitrakoot to Allahabad/ Prayagraj was dismissed vide order dated 25.01.2016 with liberty to petitioner to file application under Rule 65 of U.P.C.H. Rule before Consolidation Commissioner. There is also no dispute about the fact that transfer application filed by petitioner has been dismissed under impugned order dated 3.1.2023 passed by Additional Commissioner Consolidation U.P. Lucknow. 9. Perusal of the transfer application as well as impugned order demonstrate that there is no ground to transfer the proceeding from the Court of Deputy Director of Consolidation, Chitrakoot to Allahabad Now Prayagraj. 10. It is also material to mention that appellate proceeding was transferred from District-Allahabad/ Prayagraj to District- Chitrakoot and revisions filed by the petitioners are pending before Deputy Director of Consolidation Chitrakoot as such pending revision should be decided by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Chitrakoot. 11. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, no interference is required in the matter. 12. The writ petition is dismissed and respondent No.2/ Deputy Director of Consolidation Chitrakoot is directed to decide revision Nos.141 of 2011, 171 of 2011, 172 of 2011, 173 of 2011 and 174 of 2011 after affording proper opportunity of hearing to both parties expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order before him. Order Date :- 21.5.2025 PS* Digitally signed by :- PRITI SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad