JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Ms. Roshni Ibrahim, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ajit Kumar Singh, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Abhishek Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State respondents.

2. The present petition seeks to assail an order dated 25.02.2021 passed by the respondent No. 3/Collector/District Magistrate, Fatehpur, District Fatehpur in Case No. 00340/2021, Computerized Case No. C202102000000394 (Bajrangi Vs. State), under Section 98(1) of the U. P. Revenue Code, 2006. The order dated 05.07.2021 passed by the respondent No. 2/Commissioner, Prayagraj Region, Prayagraj in revision filed against the earlier order, being revision No. 00340/2021, Computerized Case No. C202102000000394 (Bajrangi Vs. State), under Section 210 of the U. P. Revenue Code, 2006, is also sought to be challenged.

3. As per the pleadings and the record of the writ petition, the petitioner has claimed himself to be the recorded bhumidhar with transferable rights over land bearing Gata No. 3946, area 1.0500 hectares, situate at Village Kondar, Pargana Muttaur, Tehsil and District Fatehpur.

4. It is sought to be contended that the petitioner belongs to scheduled caste and was suffering from a disease and in order to meet the expenses of medical treatment, he had taken a loan. It is submitted that in order to repay the loan and for the purposes of his medical treatment he was in need of funds and accordingly he had sought permission for transfer of his bhumidhari land by moving an application dated 20.10.2020 before the Collector in the prescribed R.C. Form 27.

5. It is pointed out that upon the aforestated application, a report dated 04.11.2020 was submitted by the Area Lekhpal indicating therein that since the transfer was being sought for repayment of loan amount and for meeting out the expenses for the treatment of the disease the petitioner had been suffering from, there was no objection to the permission which was being sought for transfer of the land in question.

6. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that despite the fact that the petitioner's case for seeking permission for transfer was fully covered as per the provisions contained under Section 98 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006[Code, 2006] read with Rule 99 of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016[Rules, 2016], the Collector rejected the application by means of an order dated 25.02.2021. It is submitted that the aforestated order was passed despite taking into notice the facts stated in the application and also the report submitted by the Area Lekhpal indicating therein that there were no objections to the permission being sought.

7. Aggrieved against the aforestated order, the petitioner preferred a revision before the Commissioner, which was also rejected by an order dated 05.07.2021 reiterating whatever was stated in the earlier order passed by the Collector.

8. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that once the petitioner had duly fulfilled the requisite conditions for grant of permission for transfer as per the relevant statutory provisions contained under Section 98 of the Code, 2006 read with the provision undrer Rule 99 of the Rules, 2016 and the report submitted by the Area Lekhpal after due verification of the facts was also favourable, there was absolutely no reason for the application to have been rejected by the concerned respondent authority.

9. It is submitted that the order passed by the respondent No. 3 rejecting the application and also the revisional order passed thereagainst by the respondent No. 2, are non-speaking and bereft of reasons. It is further submitted that the only plausible reason which may seem to emerge from the two orders, is that after the proposed transfer, the remaining area of land held by the petitioner would be 0.5930 hectares.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the requisite conditions under which permission of transfer of land may be granted by the Collector