Transfer applications require substantial evidence of bias; mere apprehension is insufficient for judicial intervention.

JUDGMENT :

(Chandra Kumar Rai, J.)

1. Heard Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Anjani Kumar Chaurasiya, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Mr. Sudhanshu Pandey, learned Counsel for respondent Nos.5 and 6.

2. Brief facts of the case are that Smt. Lakhpatti, wife of Mahadev, was recorded tenure holder Arazi No.246 Area 0-11-1, 279 Area 0-6-0, 280 Area 0-14-10, and 281 Area 0-2-10. Total 4 plots Area 7-7-1. Lakhpati executed an unregistered will deed on 12.3.1996 in favour of Basanti, wife of Harihar Prasad, which was alleged to be registered subsequently on 16.11.2006. Two other unregistered will deeds alleged to have been executed by Lakhpatti in favour of Jai Prakash Jaiswal and Ravi Prakash Jaiswal. Lakhpatti died on 13.3.1996. The application under Section 34 of Land Revenue Act 1901 was filed on behalf of Basanti on the basis of unregistered will deed dated 12.3.1996. The aforementioned mutation application filed by Basanti was allowed vide order dated 12.3.1999. Against the order dated 12.3.1999, an application to recall the order dated 12.3.1999 was filed by Ravi Prakash Jaiswal on 24.5.1999. Jai Prakash Jaiswal also filed a recall application as a manager of the institution on 7.6.1999. The aforementioned restoration applications were heard and rejected by the Tehsildar vide order dated 16.7.2002. Against the order dated 16.7.2002 and 12.3.1999, an appeal was filed by Jai Prakash Jaiswal as a manager of the institution, which was dismissed vide order dated 11.6.2003. Jai Prakash Jaiswal challenged the aforesaid order dated 11.6.2003, 16.3.2002 and 12.3.1999 by way of revision before Commissioner, which was dismissed vide order dated 3.4.2000. Basanti has executed a registered sale-deed in favour of petitioner as well as one Smt. Prabha Devi on 3.6.2000. Petitioner along with Prabha Devi applied for mutation on the basis of the registered Sale deed dated 3.6.2000 in the place of Basanti Devi. Jai Prakash Jaiswal challenged the order dated 3.4.2006, 11.6.2003, 12.3.1999 and 16.7.2002 before this Court by Writ Petition No. 47801 of 2006 in which initially interim order was granted but after exchange of the affidavits, writ petition was heard finally and vide order dated 26.03.2012 dismissed the aforementioned writ petition with liberty to petitioner or any of the other claimants to the holdings of Smt. Lakhaptti Devi to file a regular suit for declaration of thier right. In pursuance of the order of this Court, petitioner filed a suit under Section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A & L.R. Act was filed by respondent no. 5-Mahadev Prasad Inter College through its manager which was registered as case no. T201302574316 before Sub-Divisional Officer. Notices were issued to the defendants in the aforementioned suit accordingly defendants have put in appearance in the suit. Trial court proceeded in the aforementioned suit ex-parte and dismissed the suit vide order dated 24.05.2018 is not maintainable. Against the order dated 24.05.2018, respondent No. 6 alleging himself to be manager of Mahadev Prasad Inter College filed an application for restoration along with prayer for condonation of delay as well as amendment/ impleadment. The Sub Divisional Officer vide Order dated 13.07.2020 issued notice on the applications and vide Order dated 02.06.2022 recalled the earlier order dated 24.05.2018. Against the order dated 02.06.2022, petitioner filed a restoration application dated 13.07.2022 along with the prayer of condonation of delay, but the aforementioned application was dismissed by Sub Divisional Officer vide order dated 12.09.2022. Against the order dated 02.6.2022 and 12.09.2022, petitioner filed an appeal before Commissioner, which was dismissed by respondent No3/Additional Commissioner vide order dated 6.4.2023. Second appeal filed by petitioner before respondent No. 2-Board of Revenue, was also dismissed, vide order dated 23.06.2023. After dismissal of second appeal