ORDER :

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents as well as Ms. Manjusha Kapil, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2.

2. With the consent of the parties, this matter has been heard finally.

3. Under challenge is the order passed by the Board of Revenue on a transfer application moved by the private respondent No. 2 which has been allowed by means of order dated 07.09.2020.

4. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the application for transfer which was moved by the private respondent No. 2 primarily raised the deficiencies in the order which was under review before the Presiding Officer. The merit of the order whether right or wrong and once a remedy of review has been adopted then on that ground an application for transfer seeking the matter to be placed before some other court is not desirable. Moreover, the respondent No. 1 while passing the impugned order dated 07.09.2001 without considering or application of mind has allowed the transfer application.

5. The learned counsel for the respondents while defending the said order has submitted that a revision was preferred before the said Presiding Officer which was decided by means of order dated 16.12.2020. Thereafter application for review was preferred. Since Presiding Officer was proceeding in a hurry, hence, an application for transfer was moved in terms of Section 212 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. It is submitted that the Board of Revenue while considering the transfer application has noticed that since an allegation/apprehension has been expressed by the private respondent No. 2 that he may not be able to get justice from the Court concerned, the transfer application has been allowed and in this view of the matter, the petitioner cannot be aggrieved and the petition deserves to be dismissed.

6. Having considered the rival submissions and also from the perusal of the record, the fact which requires consideration is that once an order has been passed on 16.12.2020 against which the private respondents had consciously availed a remedy of filing a review. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that by making a bald allegation that they do not have the faith or that there is an apprehension that they may not get justice from the Court concerned a transfer application be entertained and allowed

7. The matter of transfer on the allegation that a person may not get complete justice from the Court is a serious issue. This aspect of the matter has been considered by this Court in the case of Ram Prakash Vs. District Judge, Balli and Others , 2015 (1) ARC 103 and has held as under:

“Law is well settled on the point that for transferring a case unless the Court feels the allegations, as levelled are bona fide and there is a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the litigant, the allegations may be of any serious nature, no transfer can be allowed. Transfer of a case from one Court to another is a very serious thing and that casts a doubt on the integrity of a Presiding Officer and thus the Court may be very cautious in dealing with these matters and unless there are various attending circumstances even if there is no direct proof in respect to the allegations, no transfer is to be allowed. In the event, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is accepted that as a transfer application is moved, the faith of the litigant is shaken, then it is to be allowed/accepted, then it will lead to very unhealthy results as it will be a tool for the litigant to choose a Court according to the nature of the Presiding Officer, according to his views which may be widely known.”

8. Similarly in the case