This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution, is directed against the the order Annexure P-1 dated 20.11.2012 passed by Board of Revenue whereby revision of the petitioner against Additional Commissioner's order dated 2.6.2012 is rejected.

2. The petitioner preferred an application under Section 29(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for brevity MPLRC) before the Additional Commissioner, Bhopal Division (Camp Vidisha) on 31.3.2012 (Annexure P-5). In this application it was prayed that the Revenue Case No. 25/A-27/11-12 be transferred. On this application, the order Annexure P-2 was passed by the Additional Commissioner whereby the petitioner's case was transferred to the Court of Tehsildar, Vidisha.

3. Feeling aggrieved by this order, the revision was preferred before the Board of Revenue which was rejected by Board of Revenue by order dated 20.11.2012. In this petition, initially order dated 16.1.2010 was passed and the order of Board of Revenue aforesaid was set aside by directing the Bord of Revenue to reconsider the application of petitioner under Section 29(2) of M.P.L.R.C. This order was put to test in W.A.No.59/13 by respondent No.2. Since respondent No.2 was neither noticed nor heard by the Writ Court, the Writ Appeal was disposed of by setting aside the order dated 16.1.2013 passed in aforesaid W.P. and matter was directed to be decided on merits.

4. Shri K.S.Tomar, learned Senior counsel submits that the last portion of paragraph 4 of application Annexure P-5 makes it clear that petitioner's request was to transfer the case beyond district Vidisha and, therefore, by no stretch of imagination, it can be presumed that petitioner had given consent for transferring the matter within the same district of Vidisha. In addition, it is contended that order of Writ Court passed on 16.1.2013 cannot be treated as set aside qua other respondents except respondent No.2, who preferred the writ appeal.

5. During the course of argument, attention of this Court is drawn on document dated 3.2.2014 filed along with the affidavit of Shyam Sunder Sharma. This certificate shows that the Presiding Officer Shri A.K.Singh from whose Court transfer was sought is no more a Presiding Officer of that Court and some other officer was posted there. Shri K.S.Tomar, learned senior counsel submits that he is not satisfied with mere transfer of the said officer because in para 4 of his application he prayed for transfer of the matter to some other district.

6. The prayer is opposed by the other side.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

8. In the opinion of this Court, the power to transfer a matter from one Court to another Court is given with a view to ensure fair trial to the litigants. The said power cannot be exercised on whims and fancies, nor transfer can be directed on mere asking. If application Annexure P-5 is carefully perused, it shows that the entire grievance of the petitioner is against the then Presiding Officer Shri A.K.Singh. The allegations in paragraph 4 shows that the petitioner was not expecting fair trial in the hands of then Presiding Officer Shri A.K.Singh. There is no pleading in the said application which shows that if the matter continues in the same Revenue district, it will cause any prejudice to the petitioner and it will deprive him from any free and fair trial. In absence of any such pleading and material, the transfer beyond district cannot be made as a matter of course or on mere asking. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, merely because petitioner has contended in last line of para 4 that matter be transferred beyond the district, I find no reason or justification for taking into account the said request. At the cost of repetition, it is gathered that the petitioner has not shown any reason in his application as to why he will not get justice in the hands of some other Presiding Officer of the same Revenue district. Admittedly, the Presiding