Allegations of bias or collusion without substantial proof are insufficient for transferring a case; litigants must uphold respect for judicial processes.

JUDGMENT :

J.J. MUNIR, J.

1. Heard Mr. Hanuman Deen Verma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sharad Chandra Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State.

2. The petitioner filed an application seeking transfer of Revision No. 842, Mohan Lal and others v. Ashok Kumar and others, pending before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Basti to the District Deputy Director of Consolidation or any other Deputy Director of Consolidation competent to decide.

3. The case of the petitioner is that he instituted the revision aggrieved by the order dated 23.01.2024 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation in Appeal No. 484/534 by which condonation of delay in preferring the appeal to the extent of forty years was granted and the appeal registered.

4. The further case of the petitioner is that, though he had carried a revision to the Deputy Director of Consolidation on substantial ground, but the opposite party to the revision, in connivance with the Presiding Officer, got the case fixed for orders. Upon the petitioner fetching his Counsel, it transpired that the case had been reserved for orders.

5. It is also alleged that the Presiding Officer, upon being confronted with these proceedings by the petitioner's Counsel said that he may put in his written submissions or address orally but there was no time to hear him now. It is then said that upon the learned Counsel for the petitioner before the Revisional Court asking him for necessary fee to draft his written submissions which he had to arrange. In the evening hours, the applicant went to take care of his fields and passed-by the opposite party's home. The opposite parties' were talking amongst themselves that they had fixed matters with the Presiding Officer and got the case scheduled for orders. The petitioner, therefore, moved the present transfer application before the Deputy Director of Consolidation with a case that he lost heart upon the aforesaid developments and whatever he overheard.

6. It was further said by the petitioner that he had no expectation of receiving a fair hearing or an impartial judgment by the Deputy Director of Consolidation and prayed for a transfer. The application was heard by the District Deputy Director of Consolidation who remarked the first ground is that the Presiding Officer, in connivance with the other side, fixed the case for orders without hearing the petitioner. The other is about the petitioner overhearing the opposite party about an understanding with the Deputy Director of Consolidation that he would decide for the opposite party. The District Deputy Director of Consolidation has remarked that the concerned Presiding Officer never fixed the case for orders, as the records show. Rather, he had fixed it for final hearing. Therefore, the fact that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has scheduled the case for orders without hearing was incorrect.

7. About the other matter, which relates to the petitioner overhearing or, eavesdropping on the other side, the District Deputy Director of Consolidation has not believed it. He has called it hearsay. The District Deputy Director of Consolidation/Collector is wrong in calling what the petitioner alleges is hearsay. Hearsay is something which the persons saying before the Court had himself not heard. The petitioner asserted that he himself eavesdropped on the other side and overheard the other side say that he had fixed matters with the Presiding Officer. The allegations is, therefore, by no means hearsay.

8. The Collector ought be careful in choosing his words while seized of legal matters because obviously he is not trained in the law. But, the fact that the Collector has used a wrong word, does not detract from the wor