JUDGMENT M.P. Singh, J. - Heard Sri Prakash Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioner and the standing Counsel on behalf of the respondents No. 1, 2, and 3. 2. Tarif Singh, respondent no. 4. and others filed an objection under Section 9 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act against Balbir Singh and others which was dismissed by the consolidation Officer by an order dated 29-1-1985. Against this order of the Consolidation Officer, two Appeals No. 286/133/35 and 287/134/36, Tarif Singh and others v. Raj pal and others were filed before Sri Shyam Lal Mittal, Settlement Officer Consolidation, Aligarh. It appears that Sri Shyam Lal Mittal, respondent No. 3, was approached by Tarif Singh and others to get a decision in their favour. The respondent no. 3 himself then transferred the appeals to the court of Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation to decide on merits. For reasons best known to the respondent no. 3, he again transferred the appeals back to his own court. The petitioner became apprehensive of not getting justice from him as he had already disclosed that the respondents have approached him. The petitioner thereafter filed a transfer application before the Additional Director of Consolidation U.P. Lucknow which was rejected on 5-12-1987 mainly on the ground that the appeals in question were old and that there was nothing wrong against the respondent No. 3. 3. In my opinion once the Settlement Officer Consolidation, respondent No. 3, has transferred the appeals to the court of Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation on the ground that the respondents have approached him, it was unfair on his part to get the appeals transferred back to his own court. The petitioner rightly became apprehensive for not getting justice from the respondent No. 3 and as such he filed an application for transfer. Under the facts and circumstances of the present case, it was improper on the part of the respondent no. 3 to have again transferred the appeals to his own court. The appeals must be heard by some other settlement officer Consolidation. 4. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed and the order dated 5-12-1987 passed by the Additional Director of Consolidation, U.P. Lucknow, is set aside. 3 to have again transferred the appeals to his own court. The appeals must be heard by some other settlement officer Consolidation. 4. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed and the order dated 5-12-1987 passed by the Additional Director of Consolidation, U.P. Lucknow, is set aside. The Deputy Director of consolidation is directed to transfer appeals No. 286/133 35 and 287/134/36 to the court of some other settlement officer consolidation from the court of Shyam Lal Mittal respondent No. 3. The appeals so transferred should be decided within three months from the date of the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation who will fix a date accordingly. 5. A certified copy of this order may be given to the counsel for the petitioner on payment of usual charges within three days.