Allahabad High Court
Kunwar Chandra vs Addl. Commissioner, Administration … on 7 April, 2025
Author: Saurabh Lavania
Bench: Saurabh Lavania
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:19434 Court No. - 7 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3328 of 2025 Petitioner :- Kunwar Chandra Respondent :- Addl. Commissioner, Administration Second, Devi Patan Division, Gonda And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Santosh Kumar Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.
1. Heard Shri Santosh Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the State/respondent nos. 1, 2 &6 and perused the record.
2. The present petition has been preferred seeking following main reliefs:-
“i. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 24.3.2025, and 27.2.2025, passed by the opp.party no.1 and 2 as contained in Annexure no.l and 2 to this writ petition in the interest of justice.
ii. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opp. parties concerned for transfer of the mutation case no. T202408300413286, under section 34 of U.P. Revenue code 2006, Mukarram Ali Vs. Om Prakash and others, from the court of Naib Tehsildar Teh. & Distt. Gonda to any other court of law, in the interest justice.”
3. The reason (s) for seeking transfer of the case in issue has been indicated in paragraphs 10 to 16 of the writ petition. Paragraphs 8 to 13 of the writ petition seeking transfer of the case are quoted hereunder for ready reference:-
“10. That the opp.party no. 6 (six): are adament to pass the mutation order on the second sale deed executed in favour of the opp party no.5 by the opp. party no. 3 and 4 and the opp. party no. 6 is not ready to pass the order in favour of the petitioner who is first purchaser of the land in question which sale deed was executed by the father of the opp.party no. 3 and 4 as well as other co-tenure holder in favour of the petitioner. The next date in mutation case fixed for 3.4.2025.
11. That there are illegality, irregularity and infirmity in the impugned orders passed by the opp.party no,l and 2.
12 That the impugned orders are against the facts and law both.
13. That if the impugned orders are not quashed by this Hon’ble court and the aforesaid mutation case from the court of the opp. party no.6 to any other court of law of same jurisdi-ction the petitioner will suffer irreparable loss and injury and he will be deprived of fair, proper and impartial justice from the court of law.
14. That the petitioner has full hope of justice and kindness from this Hon’ble court and as such he is taking shelter of this Hon’ble court for justice and kindness.
15. That ifthis Hon’ble court will not interfere in this case injustice will be done with the petitioner and he will be deprived of justice and kindness from this Hon’ble court.
16. That the petitioner having no other alter-native and efficacious remedy but to file the present writ petition before this Hon’ble court…..”
4. In view of subject matter of the present petition which relates to transfer of Mutation Case no. T202408300413286, (Mukarram Ali Vs. Om Prakash and others), under Section 34 of U.P. Revenue Code 2006, from the court of Naib Tehsildar Teh. & Distt. Gonda to any other court of competent jurisdiction in the District, and the prayers sought, this Court finds it appropriate to take note of the observations made in this regard by the Constitutional Courts.
5. Mere suspicion by the party that he will not get justice would not justify transfer. There must be a reasonable apprehension to that effect. There must be a reasonable apprehension to that effect. A judicial order made by a Judge legitimately cannot be made foundation for a transfer of case. Mere presumption of possible apprehension should not and ought not be the basis of transfer of any case from one case to another. It is only in very special circumstances, when such grounds are taken, the Court must find reasons exist to transfer a case, not otherwise. Reference can be made to the judgment(s) passed in the case of Rajkot Cancer Society vs. Municipal Corporation, Rajkot, AIR 1988 Guj 63; Pasupala Fakruddin and Anr. vs. Jamia Masque and Anr., AIR 2003 AP 448; and Nandini Chatterjee vs. Arup Hari Chatterjee, AIR 2001 Cul 26; as also the judgment dated 12.11.2014 passed in Transfer Application (Civil) No. 519 of 2014 (Amit Agarwal vs. Atul Gupta), 2014 SCC OnLine (All) 16200.
6. Reference can also be made on the judgments of this Court passed in the case of Salamat Ullah and Another vs. Ram Autar Khandelwal and Others reported in 2011 (10) ADJ 294 (LB) and judgment dated 10.09.2012 passed in Transfer Application (Civil) No.290 of 2012 (Shakeela vs. Mehboob Ali Siddiqui) and judgment dated 12.11.2014 passed in Transfer Application (Civil) No.524 of 2014 (Kaneej Fatma vs. Mohd. Tayyab), according to which the power of transfer must be practiced/ exercised with great caution and attentiveness and on the basis of vague/bald allegations made in the application seeking transfer against the Presiding Officer, the case should not be transferred.
7. Further, as per observations made in the judgment passed in the case of Madanlal Versus Babulal reported in AIR 1962 Mani 42 mere fact that an erroneous order has been passed is not in itself is a ground for transfer as it does not necessarily lead to inference of bias.
8. A Judge is not expected to remain silent during course of hearing and not to express any opinion. A sphinx like attitude is not expected from a Presiding Officer. There has to be an effective discussion and effective attempt to conciliate or to clarify the misunderstanding or to get the issues clear, so that the issues can be settled or a just and proper decision can be arrived at. If in that process the Presiding Officer would make a statement it should not be misunderstood as an expression of decision. Judges’ opinions during hearing of case do not automatically justify transfer. [Smt. Sangeetha S. Chugh vs. Ram Narayan V. and others, AIR 1995 Kar 112 and Official Assignee, Madras vs. Inspector-General of Registration, Bangalore and Anr., AIR 1981 Mad 54; Gujarat Electricity Board & Anr. vs. Atmaram Sungomal Poshani; AIR 1989 SC 1433 (1436).]
9. Certain observations made by a Judge in an earlier case can never be made a ground for transfer of the case as held in G. Lakshmi Ammal vs. Elumalai Chettiar and Ors, AIR 1981 Mad 24. The allegations of bias of Presiding Officer, if made the basis for transfer of case, before exercising power under Section 408 Cr.P.C., the Court must be satisfied that the apprehension of bias or prejudice is bona fide and reasonable. The expression of apprehension, must be proved /substantiated by circumstances and material placed by such applicant before the Court. It cannot be taken as granted that mere allegation would be sufficient to justify transfer.
10. In Ajay Kumar Pandey, Advocate, (1998) 7 SCC 248, the Hon’ble Apex Court said that superior Courts are bound to protect the Judges of subordinate Courts from being subjected to scurrilous and indecent attacks, which scandalise or have the tendency to scandalise, or lower or have the tendency to lower the authority of any court as also all such actions which interfere or tend to interfere with the due course of any judicial proceedings or obstruct or tend to obstruct the administration of justice in any other manner. No affront to the majesty of law can be permitted. The fountain of justice cannot be allowed to be polluted by disgruntled litigants. The protection is necessary for the courts to enable them to discharge their judicial functions without fear.
11. This Court also made similar observations in Smt. Munni Devi and others vs. State of U.P. and others, 2013(2) AWC 1546 and in para 10, said:-
“Be that as it may, so far as the present case is concerned, suffice is to mention that the Constitution makers have imposed constitutional obligation upon the High Court to exercise control over subordinate judiciary. This control is both ways. No aberration shall be allowed to enter the Subordinate Judiciary so that its purity is maintained. Simultaneously Subordinate Judiciary can not be allowed to be attacked or threatened to work under outside pressure of anyone, whether individual or a group, so as to form a threat to objective and independent functioning of Subordinate Judiciary.”
12. In assessing whether a case for transfer of the proceedings has been made out, it would, at the outset, be appropriate to advert to the locus classicus on the subject of the case. In Gurcharan Das Chadha Vs. State of Rajasthan : (1966) 2 SCR 686.
“The law with regard to transfer of cases is well-settled. A case is transferred if there is a reasonable apprehension on the part of a party to a case that justice will not be done. A petitioner is not required to demonstrate that justice will inevitably fail. He is entitled to a transfer if he shows circumstances from which it can be inferred that he entertains an apprehension and that it is reasonable in the circumstances alleged. It is one of the principles of the administration of justice that justice should not only be done but it should be seen to be done. However, a mere allegation that there is apprehension that justice will not be done in a given case does not suffice. The Court has further to see whether the apprehension is reasonable or not. To judge the reasonableness of the apprehension the state of the mind of the person who entertains the apprehension is no doubt relevant but that is not all. The apprehension must not only be entertained but must appear to the Court to be a reasonable apprehension.”
13. These sentiments have been placed, in no uncertain terms, in the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Jawant Singh Vs. Virender Singh 1995 Supp (1) SCC 384 thus:
“It is most unbefitting for an advocate to make imputations against the Judge only because he does not get the expected result, which according to him is the fair and reasonable result available to him. Judges cannot be intimidated to seek favourable orders….”
14. In a subsequent decision in Chetak Construction Ltd. Vs. Om Prakash & Ors., (1998) 4 SCC 577 the Hon’ble Apex Court while adverting to these observations held thus:-
“Indeed, no lawyer or litigant can be permitted to browbeat the court or malign the presiding officer with a view to get a favourable order. Judges shall not be able to perform their duties freely and fairly if such activities were permitted and in the result administration of justice would become a casualty and rule of law would receive a setback. The Judges are obliged to decide cases impartially and without any fear or favour. Lawyers and litigants cannot be allowed to “terrorize” or “intimidate” Judges with a view to “secure” orders which they want. This is basic and fundamental and no civilised system of administration of justice can permit it. The court certainly, cannot approve of any attempt on the part of any litigant to go “forum-shopping”. A litigant cannot be permitted “choice” of the “forum” and every attempt at “forum-shopping” must be crushed with a heavy hand.”
15. In R.K. Anand Vs. Registrar, Delhi High Court (2009) 8 SCC 106, the Hon’ble Apex Court made certain observations which, though in the context of a recusal, are of significance:-
“In the order the Judge concerned further observed: “The path of recusal is very often a convenient and a soft option. This is especially so since a Judge really has no vested interest in doing a particular matter. However, the oath of office taken under Constitution of India enjoins the Judge to duly and faithfully and to the best of his knowledge and judgment, perform the duties of office without fear or favour, affection or ill will while upholding the Constitution and the laws. In a case, where unfounded and motivated allegations of bias are sought to be made with a view of forum hunting / Bench preference or brow-beating the court, then, succumbing to such a pressure would tantamount to not fulfilling the oath of office.”
16. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kulwinder Kaur v. Kandi Friends Education Trust reported in (2008) 3 SCC 659, observed as under:-
“23. Reading Sections 24 and 25 of the Code together and keeping in view various judicial pronouncements, certain broad propositions as to what may constitute a ground for transfer have been laid down by courts. They are balance of convenience or inconvenience to the plaintiff or the defendant or witnesses; convenience or inconvenience of a particular place of trial having regard to the nature of evidence on the points involved in the suit; issues raised by the parties; reasonable apprehension in the mind of the litigant that he might not get justice in the court in which the suit is pending; important questions of law involved or a considerable section of public interested in the litigation; “interest of justice” demanding for transfer of suit, appeal or other proceeding, etc. Above are some of the instances which are germane in considering the question of transfer of a suit, appeal or other proceeding. They are, however, illustrative in nature and by no means be treated as exhaustive. If on the above or other relevant considerations, the court feels that the plaintiff or the defendant is not likely to have a “fair trial” in the court from which he seeks to transfer a case, it is not only the power, but the dutyof the court to make such order.”
17. Hon’ble Apex Court in Abdul Nazar Madani v. State of T.N. MANU/SC/0349/2000 : (2000) 6 SCC 204 has held that:-
“…The apprehension of not getting a fair and impartial inquiry or trial is required to be reasonable and not imaginary, based upon conjectures and surmises. If it appears that the dispensation of criminal justice is not possible impartially and objectively and without any bias, before any court or even at any place, the appropriate court may transfer the case to another court where it feels that holding of fair and proper trial is conducive. No universal or hard-and-fast rules can be prescribed for deciding a transfer petition which has always to be decided on the basis of the facts of each case. Convenience of the parties including the witnesses to be produced at the trial is also a relevant consideration for deciding the transfer petition. The convenience of the parties does not necessarily mean the convenience of the Petitioners alone who approached the court on misconceived notions of apprehension. Convenience for the purposes of transfer means the convenience of the prosecution, other accused, the witnesses and the larger interest of the society.”
18. In the case of Captain Amarinder Singh v. Parkash Singh Badal and Ors. MANU/SC/0797/2009 : (2009) 6 SCC 260, while dealing with an application for transfer petition preferred Under Section 406 Code of Criminal Procedure, a three-Judge Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court has opined that for transfer of a criminal case, there must be a reasonable apprehension on the part of the party to a case that justice will not be done. It has also been observed therein that mere an allegation that there is an apprehension that justice will not be done in a given case alone does not suffice. It is also required on the part of the Court to see whether the apprehension alleged is reasonable or not, for the apprehension must not only be present but must appear to the Court to be a reasonable apprehension. In the said context, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held thus:-
“19. Assurance of a fair trial is the first imperative of the dispensation of justice. The purpose of the criminal trial is to dispense fair and impartial justice uninfluenced by extraneous considerations. When it is shown that the public confidence in the fairness of a trial would be seriously undermined, the aggrieved party can seek the transfer of a case within the State Under Section 407 and anywhere in the country Under Section 406 Code of Criminal Procedure.
20. However, the apprehension of not getting a fair and impartial inquiry or trial is required to be reasonable and not imaginary. Free and fair trial is sine qua non of Article 21 of the Constitution. If the criminal trial is not free and fair and if it is biased, judicial fairness and the criminal justice system would be at stake, shaking the confidence of the public in the system. The apprehension must appear to the court to be a reasonable one.”
19. In Lalu Prasad alias Lalu Prasad Yadav v. State of Jharkhand MANU/SC/0796/2013 : (2013) 8 SCC 593, Hon’ble Apex Court, repelling the submission that because some of the distantly related members of the trial Judge were in the midst of the Chief Minister, opined that from the said fact it cannot be presumed that the Presiding Judge would conclude against the appellant. From the said decision, following passage is reproduced hereinunder:-
“Independence of judiciary is the basic feature of the Constitution. It demands that a Judge who presides over the trial, the Public Prosecutor who presents the case on behalf of the State and the lawyer vis-a-vis amicus curiae who represents the accused must work together in harmony in the public interest of justice uninfluenced by the personality of the accused or those managing the affairs of the State. They must ensure that their working does not lead to creation of conflict between justice and jurisprudence. A person whether he is a judicial officer or a Public Prosecutor or a lawyer defending the accused should always uphold the dignity of their high office with a full sense of responsibility and see that its value in no circumstance gets devalued. The public interest demands that the trial should be conducted in a fair manner and the administration of justice would be fair and independent.”
20. In the case of Rajesh Talwar vs. CBI [(2012) 4 SCC 217] the Hon’ble Apex Court held as under: –
“46. Jurisdiction of a court to conduct criminal prosecution is based on the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Often either the complainant or the accused have to travel across an entire State to attend to criminal proceedings before a jurisdictional court. In some cases to reach the venue of the trial court, a complainant or an accused may have to travel across several States. Likewise, witnesses too may also have to travel long distances in order to depose before the jurisdictional court. If the plea of inconvenience for transferring the cases from one court to another, on the basis of time taken to travel to the court conducting the criminal trial is accepted, the provisions contained in the Criminal procedure Code earmarking the courts having jurisdiction to try cases would be rendered meaningless. Convenience or inconvenience inconsequential so far are as the mandate of law is concerned. The instant plea, therefore, deserves outright rejection.”
21. The aforesaid laws would clearly emphasize on sustenance of majesty of law by all concerned. Seeking of the transfer of criminal trial at the drop of a hat is not recognized by the courts or by any tenent of law. An order of transfer is not to be passed as a matter of routine or merely because an interested party has expressed some apprehension about the conduct of the trial by a Presiding Officer. This power would have to be exercised cautiously and in exceptional situations, where it becomes necessary to do so to provide complete justice and credibility to the trial as held in Nahar Singh Yadav and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. MANU/SC/0964/2010 : (2011) 1 SCC 307], the apprehension with regard to the miscarriage of justice should be real and substantial.
22. It is also worthwhile to extract the view of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Usmangani Adambhai Vahora Vs. State of Gujarat and Ors, reported in MANU/SC/0014/2016 (AIR 2016 SC 336), wherein it is emphasized that simply because an accused or a party has filed an application for transfer, a Judge is not required to express his disinclination. He is required under law to do his duty and not to succumb to the pressure put by a party by making callous allegations and he is not expected to show unnecessary sensitivity to such allegations.
23. In the case of Rohit Yadav and Another vs. State of U.P. and Another reported in 2016 SCC OnLine All 3052 the transfer of the case was sought broadly on two grounds; First ground was to the effect that father of first informant is a Member of District Court Bar Association Jhansi, as such, he is exercising great pressure on the Members of Bar Association, Jhansi as well as Presiding Officer of Sessions Court, Jhansi. Second ground was to the effect that the first informant is a political leader as well as student leader of Bundelkhand Degree College and at present, he is President of the students union. This Court, upon due consideration, rejected the said application. The relevant observations of this Court in the judgment passed in the case of Rohit Yadav (supra) on reproduction read as under:-
“24. Vague and vexatious accusation without an element of truth on the working of Trial Court not supported either by fact or circumstances will notipso facto be sufficient ground for transfer of a case. Transfer of a case can be made only when the same is reasonably required under facts and circumstances of a case. If allegations made for transfer are straightway discovered or found to be affecting adversely interest of justice instead of supporting it then the same will tantamount to erosion of judicial process itself and any claim so made for transfer can be, in that eventuality, termed unreasonable and uncalled for transfer of a case cannot be asked by making ostentatious, baseless and whimsical personal apprehensions. Normally such attempts should be strongly deprecated and discouraged. While considering the entirety of the matter in hand, it is obvious that this transfer application has not been moved with any fair motive but appears to be well thought attempt to somehow occasion delay in conclusion of the trial. If the applicants are apprehensive of their personal security then they may bring relevant facts to the notice of the trial Court itself. More so the record reflects that the wife of applicant No. 1 Rohit Yadav has moved bail application on behalf of minor son Chahat Yadav and has sought release of her (minor) son in her custody. This particular fact reveals that wife of applicant No. 1 is able to do Parvi of a case in the Court. More so applicant No. 2 is already on bail and it cannot be said that he is absolutely unable to do Parvi of the cases (two sessions trials) pending before the Sessions Court Jhansi. Personal inconvenience and personal apprehension of applicants as claimed by them are found to be not based on reasonable and substantive grounds as such would not justify transfer of the sessions trials. Further if the transfer application is moved with an ulterior motive to occasion or cause delay in disposal of the trial itself then that application is highly misconceived and cannot be allowed as that would adversely affect interest of justice. In catena of decisions, this tendency to seek transfer on frivolous and vague grounds has been deprecated repeatedly. Consequently, the grounds urged in support of the transfer application for transferring the aforesaid sessions trial are without any force and are liable to be turned down.
25. Accordingly, the instant transfer application is rejected.”
24. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Afjal Ali Sha @ Abjal Shaukat Sha vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. 2023 SCC OnLine SC 282 observed as under:-
“C.2. GROUNDS FOR TRANSFER
26. Coming to the second limb of the contentions raised on behalf of the parties, we may firstly notice some of the well-defined contours in relation thereto. It has by now been well established that a well-founded apprehension that justice will not be done is a prerequisite for transfer of the case. Tracing the power of transfer of a case, we are reminded of Lord Hewart’s dictum in Rex v. Sussex Justices stating that “It is not merely of some importance but is of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done”.
27. The right to a fair trial is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and its importance cannot be emphasised enough. However, to obtain the transfer of a case, the Petitioner is required to show circumstances from which it can be inferred that he entertains a reasonable apprehension. This apprehension cannot be imaginary and cannot be a mere allegation.
28. The power of transfer under Section 406, CrPC is to be exercised sparingly and only when justice is apparently in grave peril. This Court has allowed transfers only in exceptional cases considering the fact that transfers may cast unnecessary aspersions on the State Judiciary and the prosecution agency. Thus, over the years, this Court has laid down certain guidelines and situations wherein such power can be justiciably invoked.
29. In Amarinder Singh v. Parkash Singh Badal, this Court observed as follows:
“19. Assurance of a fair trial is the first imperative of the dispensation of justice. The purpose of the criminal trial is to dispense fair and impartial justice uninfluenced by extraneous considerations. When it is shown that the public confidence in the fairness of a trial would be seriously undermined, the aggrieved party can seek the transfer of a case within the State under Section 407 and anywhere in the country under Section 406 CrPC.”
30. In Nahar Singh Yadav v. Union of India after analysing the case-law, this Court enumerated the basic principles of the power of transfer under Section 406, CrPC as follows:
“29. Thus, although no rigid and inflexible rule or test could be laid down to decide whether or not power under Section 406 CrPC should be exercised, it is manifest from a bare reading of sub-sections (2) and (3) of the said section and on an analysis of the decisions of this Court that an order of transfer of trial is not to be passed as a matter of routine or merely because an interested party has expressed some apprehension about the proper conduct of a trial. This power has to be exercised cautiously and in exceptional situations, where it becomes necessary to do so to provide credibility to the trial. Some of the broad factors which could be kept in mind while considering an application for transfer of the trial are:
(i) when it appears that the State machinery or prosecution is acting hand in glove with the accused, and there is likelihood of miscarriage of justice due to the lackadaisical attitude of the prosecution;
(ii) when there is material to show that the accused may influence the prosecution witnesses or cause physical harm to the complainant;
(iii) comparative inconvenience and hardships likely to be caused to the accused, the complainant/the prosecution and the witnesses, besides the burden to be borne by the State exchequer in making payment of travelling and other expenses of the official and non-official witnesses;
(iv) a communally surcharged atmosphere, indicating some proof of inability of holding fair and impartial trial because of the accusations made and the nature of the crime committed by the accused; and
(v) existence of some material from which it can be inferred that some persons are so hostile that they are interfering or are likely to interfere either directly or indirectly with the course of justice.”
31. In R. Balakrishna Pillai v. State of Kerala, this Court noted the crucial separation of powers between the judiciary and the executive and held that “Judges are not influenced in any manner either by the propaganda or adverse publicity. Cases are decided on the basis of the evidence available on record and the law applicable.”
32. The convenience of parties and witnesses as well as the language spoken by them are also relevant factors when deciding a transfer petition, as has been noted by this Court in a catena of judgments.
33. In some of the recent decisions including in Neelam Pandey v. Rahul Shukla, this Court has viewed that transfer of a criminal case from one state to another implicitly reflects upon credibility of not only the State Judiciary but also of the prosecution agency.”
25. Considered the aforesaid and perused the impugned order(s) dated 24.03.2025 and 27.02.2025, quoted below:-
“24.03.2025
“उपरोक्त निगरानी अवर न्यायालय उप जिलाधिकारी गोण्डा द्वारा वाद संख्या टी 202508300404364 अन्तर्गत धारा 212(2) उ0प्र0राजस्व संहिता बमुकदमा कुॅवरचन्द्र बनाम मुकर्रम अली में पारित आदेश दिनांक 27.02.2025 के विरूद्ध दिनांक 12.03.2025 को इस कथन सहित प्रस्तुत किया गया है कि अवर न्यायालय का प्रश्नगत आदेश अनियमित, अवैधानिक एवं साक्ष्यों के विपरीत पारित है। निगरानीकर्ता ने अवर न्यायालय के समक्ष आपत्ति-पत्र मय कागजात दाखिल किया था, किन्तु पीठासीन अधिकारी गोण्डा द्वारा गहन विचार न करके सरसरी तौर पर प्रश्नगत आदेश पारित कर दिया गया है। विपक्षी मुकर्रम अली की आपत्ति-पत्र दिनांकित 16.01.2025 पर निगरानीकर्ता ने दिनांक 06.02.2025 को अवर न्यायालय के समक्ष प्रति आपत्ति-पत्र प्रस्तुत किया था, जिसे सरसरी तौर पर खारिज किया गया है। विदित हो कि वाद संख्या-टी202408300413286 अन्तर्गत धारा-35 उत्तर प्रदेश राजस्व संहिता 2006 मुकर्रम अली बनाम ओम प्रकाश आदि बैनामा के आधार पर विचाराधीन है, जिसमें निगरानीकर्ता ने आपत्ति-पत्र दाखिल कर रखा है और कथन किया है कि वर्तमान विक्रेता शोभाराम पुत्र राम सुन्दर ने गाटा संख्या-1/0.1940हे0 के 1/2 अंश का बैनामा एवं गाटा संख्या-9/1.5740 हे० के सम्पूर्ण अंश का बैनामा दिनांक 19.06.2009 में निगरानीकर्ता कुँवर चन्द्र पुत्र ओंकार चन्द्र के पक्ष में कर दिया था। ग्रामसभा उस समय चकबन्दी प्रक्रिया के अन्तर्गत थी और चकबन्दी अधिकारी महोदय नवीन, जनपद-गोण्डा के समक्ष दाखिल खारिज का आदेश दिनांक 16.10.2017 को बैनामा के आधार पर निगरानीकर्ता के पक्ष में हुआ, जिसकी अंकना खतौनी 1421-1426 फसली पर हो गयी थी, किन्तु आगे की खतौनी आकार-पत्र 45 में विक्रेता शोभाराम का नाम त्रुटिवश निरस्त होने से छूट गया और अभिलेख विक्रेता शोभाराम के नाम बना रह गया। शोभाराम की मृत्यु के पश्चात् शोभाराम के लड़के ओम प्रकाश व चन्द्र प्रकाश ने वरासत लगने के पश्चात् तुरन्त गाटा संख्या-1/0.1940 हे0 में से 1741.5 वर्गफुट यानी 162 वर्गमीटर आराजी बतौर आवासीय भूमि विपक्षी मुकर्रम अली के पक्ष में दिनांक 21.02.2023 को बैनामा कर दिया, जो गलत है। विक्रेता ओम प्रकाश व चन्द्र प्रकाश पुत्रगण शोभाराम को विक्रय का अधिकार नहीं था, क्योंकि उनके पिता शोभाराम ने गाटा संख्या-1/0.1940 हे0 में अपने सम्पूर्ण अश (1/2 भाग) का बैनामा पूर्ण प्रतिफल लेकर दिनांक 19.06.2009 को निगरानीकर्ता कुँवरचन्द्र के हक में बैनामा किया था। इस प्रकार ओम प्रकाश व चन्द्र प्रकाश द्वारा विपक्षी के हक में किया गया बैनामा कानूनन शून्य व गलत है, जिसके निरस्तीकरण का वाद सक्षम न्यायालय में विचाराधीन है। निगरानीकर्ता का दुरूस्ती का वाद चकबन्दी न्यायालय में विचाराधीन है। ओम प्रकाश आदि के पक्ष में की गई वरासत के निरस्तीकरण का भी वाद समक्ष न्यायालय में विचाराधीन है। विपक्षीगण के विरूद्ध जालसाजी का मुकदमा भी दर्ज करवाया गया है, जिसमें चार्जशीट भी न्यायालय पर दाखिल हो चुकी है। अन्त में निगरानी स्वीकार करने, अवर न्यायालय द्वारा पारित प्रश्नगत आदेश दिनांकित 27.02.2025 को निरस्त करने तथा विचारण न्यायालय नायब तहसीलदार धानेपुर से किसी अन्य न्यायालय पत्रावली स्थानान्तरित किये जाने की याचना की गई है।
निगरानीकर्ता के विद्वान अधिवक्ता की बहस ग्राह्यता पर सुनी गई तथा पत्रावली आदेश हेतु सुरक्षित की गई। पत्रावली आदेश में सुरक्षित होने के उपरान्त विपक्षी द्वारा आपत्ति दिनांकित 22.03.2025 प्रस्तुत करके कथन अंकित किया है कि आपत्तिकर्ता ने गाटा संख्या-1/0.19400 में से लिखित खातेदार ओमप्रकाश व चन्द्र प्रकाश पुत्रगण शोभाराम से 43X40.5=1741.5वर्गफुट यानि 162 वर्गमीटर का बैनामा दिनांक-21.12.2023 को मु0-2,00,000-रूपये में क्रय किया था, जिसके आधार पर नामान्तरण प्रार्थना पत्र न्यायालय नायब तहसीलदार महोदय धानेपुर के यहां प्रस्तुत किया, जिसमें निगरानीकर्ता द्वारा अपनी विस्तृत आपत्ति प्रस्तुत किया तथा आपत्ति की पोषणीयता पर बहस हेतु पत्रावली दिनांक 02.01.2025 को नियत किया। दिनांक 02.01.2025 को आपत्तिकर्ता व निगरानीकर्ता द्वारा अपना-अपना पक्ष रखा गया और मातहत न्यायालय ने उभयपक्ष की बहस सुनकर पत्रावली आदेश हेतु दिनांक 09.01.2025 नियत किया। निगरानीकर्ता द्वारा मुकदमें को लम्बित करने की नीयत से दिनांक 04.01.2025 को न्यायालय उपजिलाधिकारी गोण्डा पर मनगढ़न्त आधारों पर स्थानान्तरण प्रस्तुत किया। जहाॅ पर आख्या मंगायी गयी और उभयपक्ष द्वारा दिनांक 16.01.2025 को अपनी आपत्ति प्रस्तुत की तथा उभयपक्षों को सुनने के उपरान्त दिनांक 27.02.2025 को निगरानीकर्ता के स्थानान्तरण प्रार्थना पत्र में अंकित आरोपों को मनगढ़न्त व बेबुनियाद मानते हुए खारिज कर दिया।आपत्तिकर्ता के नामान्तरण वाद को लटकाने के उद्देश्य से ही निगरानीकर्ता द्वारा फर्जी, मनगढ़न्त आरोपों को लगाते हुए उपरोक्त निगरानी योजित की है जबकि बैनामें से ही आपत्तिकर्ता का कब्जा चला आ रहा है। आपत्तिकर्ता द्वारा क्रय किये गये बैनामें के मूल खातेदार शोभाराम पुत्र रामसुन्दर थे जिन्होंने अपने जीवनकाल में कोई भी बैनामा नहीं किया था और उनके मृत्यु के पश्चात् उनके जायज वारिसान उनके तीन सगे पुत्रगण ओमप्रकाश, चन्द्रप्रकाश व सन्त प्रकाश पुत्रगण शोभाराम अंकित हुए जिनको विक्रय करने का पूरा अधिकार प्राप्त है। अन्त में निगरानी को निरस्त करने पर बल दिया गया है।
मैंने निगरानीकर्ता के विद्वान अधिवक्ता की बहस ग्राह्यता पर सुनी तथा विपक्षी द्वारा प्रस्तुत आपत्ति पत्र एवं पत्रावली पर उपलब्ध कागजातों का अवलोकन किया। प्रश्नगत निगरानी अवर न्यायालय द्वारा पारित आदेश दिनांकित 27.02.2025 के विरूद्ध प्रस्तुत की गई है। अवर न्यायालय द्वारा पारित उक्त आदेश के अवलोकन से विदित होता है कि निगरानीकर्ता ने अवर न्यायालय के समक्ष स्थानान्तरण प्रार्थना पत्र प्रस्तुत करके उल्लेख किया कि परीक्षण न्यायालय के पीठासीन अधिकारी मनमाने तौर पर आदेश पारित करने पर उतारू हैं तथा पीठासीन अधिकारी एवं कर्मचारी वादी मुकदमा/विपक्षी से मिलकर अनुचित लाभ लेकर शीघ्र वादी/ आपत्तिकर्ता के पक्ष में आदेश पारित देना चाहते हैं। अवर न्यायालय द्वारा परीक्षण न्यायालय से आख्या प्राप्त की गई, जिसमें उल्लिखित किया गया है कि वाद संख्या-टी 202408300413286 अन्तर्गत धारा-35 उ0प्र0राजस्व संहिता मुर्करम अली बनाम ओम प्रकाश आदि बैनामा के आधार पर दिनांक 26.09.2024 को दायर है, जिसमें आपत्ति की पोषणीयता पर पक्षों की बहस सुनी जा चुकी है तथा पत्रावली आदेश में नियत है। अवर न्यायालय के समक्ष परीक्षण न्यायालय की आख्या प्राप्त होने के उपरान्त पक्षों द्वारा आपत्ति प्रस्तुत किया गया तथा उभयपक्ष को सुनकर प्रश्नगत स्थानान्तरण प्रार्थना पत्र बेबुनियाद एवं मनगढ़न्त आरोप पर आधारित होने के कारण अवर न्यायालय द्वारा प्रश्नगत आदेश दिनांकित 27.02.2025 के माध्यम से निरस्त कर दिया गया है।
पत्रावली के अवलोकन एवं उभयपक्ष द्वारा प्रस्तुत कथनों से यह स्पष्ट है कि परीक्षण न्यायालय के समक्ष प्रश्नगत नामान्तरण वाद में उभयपक्ष की बहस सुनी जा चुकी है तथा जिसमें आदेश पारित किया जाना शेष है, किन्तु निगरानीकर्ता द्वारा स्थानान्तरण प्रस्तुत किये जाने की दशा में आदेश पारित नहीं हो सका है। पत्रावली पर उपलब्ध स्थानान्तरण प्रार्थना पत्र की प्रतिलिपि के अवलोकन से स्पष्ट होता है कि उक्त प्रार्थना पत्र में निगरानीकर्ता ने मुख्यताः यह आरोप लगाया है कि परीक्षण न्यायालय के पीठासीन अधिकारी मनमाने तौर पर आदेश पारित करने पर उतारू हैं तथा पीठासीन अधिकारी एवं कर्मचारी वादी मुकदमा/विपक्षी से मिलकर अनुचित लाभ लेकर शीघ्र वादी/आपत्तिकर्ता के पक्ष में आदेश पारित देना चाहते हैं। उल्लेखनीय है कि अभी तक परीक्षण न्यायालय द्वारा प्रश्नगत नामान्तरण वाद में आदेश पारित नहीं किया गया है, किन्तु निगरानीकर्ता द्वारा विपक्षी के पक्ष में आदेश पारित होने की सम्भावना व्यक्त किया जा रहा है, जबकि यह स्पष्ट है कि परीक्षण न्यायालय के समक्ष उभयपक्ष द्वारा बहस प्रस्तुत किया जा चुका है तथा निगरानीकर्ता ने भी परीक्षण न्यायालय के समक्ष अपना पक्ष प्रस्तुत करने के उपरान्त स्थानान्तरण प्रार्थना पत्र प्रस्तुत किया है। स्थानान्तरण प्रार्थना पत्र में लगाये गये आरोप को मनगढ़न्त मानते हुए अवर न्यायालय ने अपने प्रश्नगत आदेश के माध्यम से उसे निरस्त किया है, जो उचित प्रतीत होता है। इस न्यायालय के समक्ष निगरानीकर्ता ने ऐसे की तथ्य का उल्लेख नहीं किया गया है, जिससे यह सिद्ध होता हो कि अवर न्यायालय द्वारा प्रश्नगत आदेश पारित करने में अनियमितता की गई हो तथा अपने क्षेत्राधिकार का दुरूयोग किया गया हो। अवर न्यायालय द्वारा पारित आदेश में हस्तक्षेप की आवश्यकता प्रतीत नहीं होती है।
उपरोक्त विवेचना के आधार पर मैं इस निष्कर्ष पर पहुॅचता हूॅ कि निगरानी बलहीन है तथा निरस्त किये जाने योग्य है।
अतः निगरानी ग्राह्यता पर निरस्त की जाती है। निगरानी में यदि कोई स्थगनादेश पारित हो तो उसे वापस लिया जाता है। निगरानी पत्रावली बाद आवश्यक कार्यवाही दाखिल दफ्तर हो।”
27.02.2025
“प्रस्तुत वाद कुंवर चन्द्र पुत्र स्व0 ओंकार चन्द्र निवासी चिड़रिहवा मौजा खीरभारी पर0तह0 व जिला गोण्डा द्वारा नायब तहसीलदार धानेपुर के न्यायालय पर विचाराधीन वाद सं0-839 मुर्करम अली बनाम आंेप्रकाश आदि अन्र्तगत धारा 34/35 मौजा खीरभारी पर0तह0 जिला गोण्डा के स्थानान्तरण हेतु उ0प्र0रा0 संहिता 2006 की धारा 212(2) के अन्र्तगत 04.01.2025 को वाद योजित किया गया। वाद पंजीकृत कर अवन न्यायालय से प्रस्तरवार आख्या प्राप्त की गई।
वादी द्वारा वाद पत्र में उल्लिखित किया गया है कि आपत्तिकर्ता के द्वारा उक्त मुकदमें में कागजात सहित आपत्ति पत्र दाखिल किया गया है, लेकिन आपत्तिकर्ता के आपत्ति पर पीठासीन अधिकारी द्वारा कोई गहन विचार न करते हुए मनमाने तौर से वादी मुर्करम अली के पक्ष में आदेश करने पर उतारू है। वादी मुकदमा से पीठासीन अधिकारी व न्यायालय के कर्मचारियों द्वारा अनुचित लाभ लेकर शीध्रातिशीध्र आदेश वादी के पक्ष में कर देना चाहते हैं। प्रार्थी/आपत्तिकर्ता ने वादी मुकदमा के पुत्र को पीठासीन अधिकारी के कार्यालय में बात-चीत करते हुए देखा है। प्रार्थी आपत्तिकर्ता द्वारा उक्त गाटा संख्या-1/0.1940हे0 भूमि पर के्रता मुर्करम अली व विक्रेता ओम प्रकाश व चन्द्र प्रकाश के विरूद्व उक्त गाटा संख्या के सम्बन्ध में बैनामा मंसूखी का वाद दायर कर रखा है, जो न्यायालय पर विचाराधीन है। प्रार्थी/आपत्तिकर्ता द्वारा एक दूसरा वाद न्यायालय नायब तहसीलदार महोदय गोण्डा के न्यायालय पर कुंवर चन्द्र बनाम ओम प्रकाश आदि जरिये वरासत निरस्तीकरण का वाद उक्त गाटा के सम्बन्ध में विचाराधीन है। उक्त पत्रावली पर बहस के दिनंाक 02.01.2025 को कोई कम्प्यूटरीकृत क्रमांक पत्रावली पर अंकित नहीं था। आपत्तिकर्ता के अधिवक्ता द्वारा न्यायालय पर पीठासीन अधिकारी को बताने पर कहा गया कि उक्त पत्रावली पर कम्प्यूटरीकृत वाद संख्या नहीं है। प्रार्थी/आपत्तिकर्ता द्वारा विवादित भूमि गाटा संख्या-1/0.1940हे0 पर बैनामा के पूर्व मुकदमा अपराध संख्या-108/24 अन्तर्गत धारा-419, 420, 467, 468, 471आई0पी0सी0 थाना धानेपुर पर आपत्तिकर्ता द्वारा पंजीकृत कराया गया, जिस पर विवेचना के दौरान विवेचक द्वारा चार्जशीट न्यायालय पर प्रेषित की गयी है। वादी के प्रार्थना पत्र को स्वीकार कर उपर्युक्त उनमान की पत्रावली न्यायालय नायब तहसीलदार धानेपुर से आख्या मंगवाकर धारा-34/35 दाखिल खारिज के वाद को किसी अन्य न्यायालय स्थानान्तरित करने का आदेश पारित किया जावे।
उक्त वाद पत्र पर प्रतिवादी मुर्करम अली के तरफ से दिनांक 16.01.2025 को आपत्ति प्रस्तुत की गयी। आपत्ति पत्र दिनांकित 16.01.2025 पर वादी के तरफ से दिनंाक 06.02.2025 को प्रतिआपत्ति प्रस्तुत की गयी।
उभयपक्षों के विद्वान अधिवक्ता की बहस सुनी गयी तथा पत्रावली का अवलोकन किया गया। अवर न्यायालय द्वारा प्रस्तुत प्रस्तरवार आख्या के सामान्य कथन में उल्लेख किया गया है कि प्रश्नगत वाद संख्या-टी202408300413286 दायरा दिनांक 26.09.2024 अन्तर्गत धारा-35 उ0प्र0 राजस्व संहिता 2006 मुर्करम अली बनाम ओम प्रकाश आदि बैनामा के आधार पर दायर किया गया है। कुंवर चन्द्र द्वारा आपत्ति प्रस्तुत किया गया है। आपत्ति की पोषणीयता पर पक्षों की बहस सुनी जा चुकी है। पत्रावली आदेश में नियत की गयी है। वाद में नियमानुसार कार्यवाही की जा रही है, फिर भी वाद को इस न्यायालय से अन्य न्यायालय पर स्थानान्तरित किये जाने में कोई आपत्ति नहीं है। वादी द्वारा उक्त स्थानान्तरण वाद 04.01.2025 को योजित किया गया है। उक्त वाद पत्र की धारा-9 में उल्लेख किया गया है कि पत्रावली पर कम्प्यूटरीकृत का नम्बर/वाद संख्या नहीं है, फिर पत्रावली कैसे नियत तिथि पर प्रस्तुत की जा रही है, जबकि प्रस्तरवार आख्या के अनुसार अवर न्यायालय में विचाराधीन वाद की दायरा तिथि 26.09.2024 है व आर0सी0सी0एम0एस0 पोर्टल पर वर्ष 2024 में दर्ज है, जिसकी कम्प्यूटरीकृत वाद संख्या-टी202408300413286 है। इस प्रकार वाद पत्र मंे अंकित किये गये आरोप मनगढ़न्त व बेबुनियाद है। इस प्रकार वाद पत्र के विरूद्व प्रस्तुत आपत्ति पत्र स्वीकार किये जाने योग्य है।
आदेश
अतः प्रतिवादी मुर्करम अली द्वारा प्रस्तुत आपत्ति पत्र दिनांकित 16.01.2025 स्वीकार करते हुए वाद पत्र अस्वीकार किया जाता है तथा वादी के द्वारा प्रस्तुत प्रतिआपत्ति पत्र तदनुसार निस्तारित की जाती है। बाद आवश्यक कार्यवाही पत्रावली दाखिल दफ्तर हो।”
26. Upon due consideration of the facts of the case, particularly the averments made in paragraphs 10 to 16 of the present petition, quoted above, as also the observations made by the Constitutional Courts on the issue of transfer of a case from one Court to another Court as also the ground/reason for seeking transfer of the case in issue, this Court finds no force in the instant petition. It is for the reason that only on mere apprehension and suspicion that the opposite party No.6/Naib Tehsildar, Dhanepur, Tehsil & District – Gonda would pass the order against the petitioner, the application for transfer was moved, as from a bare perusal of application seeking transfer it is apparent that the allegations are absolutely vague and unsubstantiated.
27. Accordingly, present petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 7.4.2025
Mohit Singh/-