IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized the necessity of providing equal access to justice and the importance of justifying transfers of cases based on the convenience of the parties involved.

JUDGMENT :

Vivek Bharti Sharma, J.

This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner to quash the impugned order dated 27.01.2023 passed by learned Chairman, Board of Revenue, Uttarakhand, Dehradun, in Transfer Application No. 15 of 2022-23 ‘Balvinder Singh and Others Vs. Jagjeet Singh and Others’, whereby the Chairman, Board of Revenue, Uttarakhand, Dehradun has transferred the Second Appeal No. 16 of 2021-22 to the Board of Revenue, Circuit Bench, Dehradun from Board of Revenue, Circuit Bench, Nainital.

2. Facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a suit under Section 229-B of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, which was dismissed by the order dated 20.09.2019; that, feeling aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Kumaon Nainital, which was allowed vide order dated 03.08.2021. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the respondent nos.1 and 2 preferred Second Appeal No. 16 of 2021-22 before the Board of Revenue, Uttarakhand, Circuit Bench, Nainital against the petitioner; that, during pendency of the said appeal, the respondent nos. 1 & 2 moved an application before learned Chairman, Board of Revenue, Uttarakhand, Dehradun to transfer the Second Appeal No. 16 of 2021-22 to the Board of Revenue, Circuit Bench, Dehradun from the Circuit Bench, Nainital; that, learned Chairman, Board of Revenue, Uttarakhand, Dehradun allowed the said application vide impugned order dated 27.01.2023 and transferred the said Second Appeal to the Board of Revenue situated at Dehradun and directed the parties to appear there, on 17.02.2023. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred present petition.

3. Counsel for the petitioner would submit that originally the Second Appeal was filed by the respondent nos. 1 & 2 (the appellants in the Second Appeal) before the Board of Revenue, Circuit Bench at Nainital and the address of the petitioner in that Second Appeal was given as Village Majgami, Tehsil Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar; that, the land in dispute is also situated within the Kumaon Division; that, the learned Chairman, Board of Revenue, Uttarakhand, Dehradun without assigning any reason and without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, has transferred the case to the Board of Revenue, Circuit Bench at Dehradun; that, the petitioner is an old person and a resident of Udham Singh Nagar, therefore, it is not possible for the petitioner to conduct the proceedings at Dehradun; that, it seems that the order of transferring the Second Appeal was passed only to facilitate the case of respondent nos. 1 & 2; that, the impugned order dated 27.01.2023 is a non-speaking order as no specific reason has been assigned for transferring the said second appeal.

4. Per contra, counsel for the respondent nos. 1 & 2 (the appellants in the Second Appeal) vehemently contests these submissions on the ground that despite several hearings before the Board of Revenue sitting at Nainital, the Second Appeal could not be disposed of because of non-appearance of the counsel of the respondent nos. 1 & 2, therefore, the said second appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution; that, even the learned Judicial Member of the Board of Revenue orally instructed the respondent nos. 1 & 2/appellants that their counsel is not conducting their case properly, therefore, they should get that second appeal transferred to the Board of Revenue situated at Dehradun as there is higher pendency of cases in the Bench at Nainital than in the Bench at Dehradun.

5. On the query of this Court, the State counsel would submit that the Board of Revenue situated at Dehradun has two Presiding Officers and each have lesser pendency than the Board of Renvenue, Circuit Bench, Nainital.

6. In compliance of the order dated 11.03.2024, whereby the Court directed the State counsel to file report about the pendency of cases in Dehradun Bench and Circuit Bench, Board of