Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
J.J.MUNIR
Mohan Lal – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
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,
Allegations of bias or collusion without substantial proof are insufficient for transferring a case; litigants must uphold respect for judicial processes.
Allegations of bias against a Presiding Officer must be substantiated with specific evidence; mere suspicion is insufficient to justify a transfer of case.
Authorities must provide adequate opportunity for parties to present their case; decisions made in haste without hearing can lead to prejudice.
Authorities must provide adequate opportunity for parties to present their arguments; haste in decision-making without hearing parties is impermissible.
A mere allegation of bias and delay in proceedings is insufficient for transferring a case; substantial evidence is required to demonstrate real apprehension of unfairness.
A transfer of case under Section 24 requires substantial evidence of bias or a denial of justice; mere apprehension is inadequate.
Allegations of bias require substantial evidence to justify the transfer of civil suits; mere apprehension of bias is insufficient, maintaining the integrity of judicial officers is paramount.
The court emphasized the necessity of fair representation and substantiated reasoning in administrative decisions, especially when property rights are at stake.
Subordinate authorities cannot review final orders from higher authorities under the governing statute; adhering to higher court directives ensures substantial justice is upheld.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
