Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Ram Baran v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT - B No. 61514 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 19052 (10 November 2006)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 61514 of 2006

Ram Baran ...............Petitioner


State of U.P. & others..............Respondents

Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

By means of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 29.9.2006 passed by the Additional Director of Consolidation rejecting the transfer application.

The facts are that transfer of proceedings of appeal pending before the Settlement Officer Consolidation was sought by the petitioner on the ground that he has seen the respondents along with his relative who is a practicing lawyer in District Court Jaunpur meeting the Settlement Officer Consolidation  in his chamber and he does not enjoy good reputation. The transfer application was rejected on the ground that allegations made are very vague and no material has been brought on record to substantiate the same.

I have perused the transfer application filed as Annexure 3 to the writ petition as well as the impugned order. Allegations made in the transfer application are absolutely vague to the extent that even the name of the advocate who has been alleged to be the relative of respondents has not been disclosed. The entire averments made in the transfer application are based on apprehension of the petitioner without there being any material which may even remotely give indication of the Presiding Officer being biased against the petitioner or acting in favour of the respondents. Transfer of proceedings cannot be allowed on mere apprehension and vague allegations. The  transfer application filed by the petitioner has rightly been rejected and there is no scope for interference in the impugned order.

The writ petition accordingly fails and is dismissed in limine.



Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.