IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 160 of 2011 Suresh Kumar son of Sri Shree Ram Gupta Resident of village Bagwala, Tehsil Kichha, District Udham Singh Nagar. … Petitioner. Versus Sri Sachida Nand Bhagat S/O Panchdev Bhagat, Disciple Late Sri Basudev Bhagat Mahant Kabir Math Kalyan Dehra, Tehsil Sikandarpur, District Balia, presently R/O Prem Vihar Chowk, P.O. Haripur Kalan, Raiwala, District Haridwar and five others. … Respondents. Mr. Arvind Vashist, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Sharad Sharma, Senior Advocate, with Mr. B.C.Bhatt, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 Date March 03, 2011. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. (Interim Relief Application No. 512 of 2011) (Miscellaneous Application No. 1127 of 2011) By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 4- 1-2011 passed by Director Consolidation Uttarakhand Dehradun in Transfer Application No. 41 of 2009-10, Sri Sachidanand Bhagat Vs. Sri Sriram Gupta, whereby Case No. 24 of 2007-08 Sri Sachidanand Bhagat Vs. Sri Sriram Gupta and Case No. 229 of 2007-08 Sri Arvind Kumar Vs. Sri Sriram Gupta have been transferred from the court of Consolidation Officer Kichcha to the court of Consolidation Officer II, Roorkee, district Haridwar for disposal. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that transfer application under Rule 65(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules 1954 (for short the Rules) framed under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act 1953 (for short the Act) was moved by the respondent no. 1 on the ground mentioned in the application. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that in the aforesaid cases objections were filed under Section 9A of the Act by the respondents and the cases were pending before the 2 Consolidation Officer Kichcha prior to transfer of those cases to Consolidation Officer concerned at Roorkee. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also contended that the power of transfer of cases is contained in Rule 65 of the Rules, which reads as under:- “65. Section 54.- (1) The Settlement Officer, Consolidation, may withdraw any case from the file of any Consolidation Officer or Assistant Consolidation Officer subordinate to him and may refer the same for disposal to any other Consolidation Officer or Assistant Consolidation Officer competent to deal therewith. (1-A) The Officer before whom appeals, revisions or references under the provisions of the Act or these rules are instituted may transfer any case instituted or pending before him to any other officer empowered to hear and decide such case, or recall case pending before any other officer from the file of that officer to his own file. The District Deputy Director of Consolidation of a district where Joint/Deputy/Assistant Director of Consolidation is posted may call for record of any revision or case pending before such officer for disposal and may transfer it to such officer if he is unable to decide it for some reason. (2) The Director of Consolidation may withdraw any case from the file of any Settlement Officer, Consolidation, and refer the same to any other Settlement Officer Consolidation for disposal.” Learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, argued that the power to transfer the cases in the present matter is vested with the Settlement Officer Consolidation and not in the Director of Consolidation. On the other hand, in reply thereto, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has submitted that the Rule making power to transfer the cases vests with the State Government as provided under Section 54 of the Act and under sub-section (2) clause (t) of Section 54, the State Government may provide for the transfer of proceedings from one authority or officer to another. 3 Having heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules, I am of the opinion that Section 54 of the Act contains the power of the State Government to make rules for the purposes of carrying into effect the provisions of this Act including transfer of cases. That being so, the State Government has power to make rules for transfer of proceedings from one authority or officer to another. The Rule 65 of the Rules is the procedural part of the Rule making power as contained in Section 54 of the Act. For transfer of any case from the file of any Consolidation Officer to another Consolidation Officer or Assistant Consolidation Officer subordinate to him, the Settlement Officer Consolidation is the competent authority and not the Director of Consolidation. On this ground alone, the writ petition is liable to be allowed. The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order passed by Director of Consolidation is set aside. However, the respondent no. 1 would be at liberty to move a transfer application before the Settlement Officer Consolidation, if so advised. If the transfer application is so moved, the same shall be decided on merits in accordance with law. All pending applications stand disposed of. (B.S.Verma, J.) RCP