The judgment emphasized the importance of adhering to principles of natural justice and the requirement to provide adequate opportunity for the petitioner to present her case.

Anil Kumar, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri M. E. Khan, learned Standing Counsel and perused the record.

2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 06.09.2011 passed by opposite party no.1/Additional Director of Consolidation (Pra.) U.P., Lucknow thereby rejecting the petitioner's application for transfer filed under Rule 65 (2) of U.P.C.H. Act.

3. The factual controversy involved in the present case is that the petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 12.12.2014 passed by Consolidation Officer, Sadar had preferred an appeal No.482/14-15 under Section 11 (1) of U. P. C. H. Act (hereinafter referred to as Act) before the opposite party no.2/Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Bahraich.

4. During the pendency of said appeal, on 25.07.2016, she moved an application for transfer of the matter from the Court of opposite party no.2 to another court under Rule 65 (2) of U.P.C.H. Act. Opposite party no.1 vide order dated 06.09.2011 had rejected the said application with the finding that the grounds which are taken by the petitioner for transfer of the matter in question are not sufficient and imaginary one.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner while challenging the impugned order submits that the order in question is in contravention to the principles of natural justice and the matter may be transferred from the Court of opposite party no.2 to another court.

6. He further submits that opposite party no.2 had started acting on his whims and fancies as well as under the influence of local District President Luxmi Narayan Yadav of Ruling Govt. of Samajwadi Party and also of Ex M.L.A./Sri Ram Tej Yadav of Kaiserganj Constituency. It is pertinent to mention herein that Ex. M.L.A./Sri Ram Tej Yadav is close relative of opposite party no.3 as the daughter of real uncle of opposite party no.3 is married with Sri Pradeep Yadav, Advocate, who is son of real brother of Ex M.L.A./Sri Ram Tej Yadav and is also effective leader of samajwadi Party.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records.

8. In order to decide the controversy involved in the present case, it will be appropriate to go through the relevant provisions of Rule 65 (2) of U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954, which reads as under : -

"The Director of Consolidation may withdraw any case from the file of any settlement Officer, Consolidation, and refer the same to any other Settlement Officer, Consolidation for disposal."

9. So far as argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order is in violation of principles of natural justice as no opportunity of hearing whatsoever has been given to the petitioner prior to passing the impugned order does not holds good as from the bare perusal of the impugned judgement, the position which emerges out is that she has been given adequate opportunity to put forward her case. So the said argument has got no force in view of the judgment given by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Shiv Sagar Tiwari vs. Union of India 1997 (1) SCC 444 , relevant paras 48 and 49 are quoted herein as under: -

"Para 48- May it also be stated that it is well settled that requirements of natural justice can be stated in such a way as to take care of two basic facets of this principle: (1) to make known the nature of accusation; and (2) to give opportunity to state the case, as accepted by this Court in Hira Nath Mishra vs. Principal, Rajendra Medical College. In Subhash Chandra case it has been even held that no hearing is required to be given to the candidates before cancelling the examination where mass-copying was indulged, if a case for the same was otherwise made out. Present is also a case of large-scale out of turn allotments, and so, on principle no hearing at all might have been given. But we did not go to that extent and gave even personal hearing to many among those who chose to appear pursuant to the notice p