JUDGMENT C.K. Thakker, J (Oral):- Admitted. Mr. Sanjay Karol, learned Advocate General, instructed by Mr. M.L. Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General appears and waives service of notice of admission on behalf of respondents No.l and 2. Mr. Ajay Sharma appears and waives service of notice of admission on behalf of respondents No.3 to 5 and Mr. Vijay Bhatia, learned counsel appears and waives service of notice of admission on behalf of respondents No.6 to 14. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the matter is taken up for final hearing today. 2. This petition is filed by the petitioner restraining respondent No.2, Director of Consolidation of Holdings, Himachal Pradesh, Shimla, from proceeding further with Revision Petition No. 172 of 2000 pending before him and for other appropriate reliefs. 3. The case of the petitioner before this Court is that the petitioner and proforma respondents No.6 to 14 are joint owners of land situated in Mohal Gindpur, Malaun and Siwana. The petitioner along with proforma respondents have half share and respondents No.3 to 5 (contesting respondents) have other half share in the joint holdings. It appears that there is some dispute between the parties and proceedings were initiated under the Himachal Pradesh Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). At present, a revision is pending before respondent No.2. 4. In the petition filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the constitution, a complaint is made that since the petitioner apprehends that respondent No.2 will not decide the revision impartially and objectively as he is biased and likely to favour contesting respondents, it should be transferred to some other officer or to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. 5. Notice was issued pursuant to which the respondents appeared. Affidavits and further affidavits are filed. Today, I have admitted the matter and I am disposing it finally. 6. The grievance of the petitioner is that looking to the approach of respondet No.2, the petitioner reasonably feels that he would not be able to objectively consider the matter and decide strictly in accordance with law. For that, my attention was invited by the learned counsel to a fact that earlier also, some steps were taken by respondent No.2, which were not strictly in accordance with law and were also contrary to the orders passed by superior authority. For that, my attention was invited by the learned counsel to a fact that earlier also, some steps were taken by respondent No.2, which were not strictly in accordance with law and were also contrary to the orders passed by superior authority. It was stated that in past, the matter was placed for hearing for one Mr. K. It was objected to by the petitioner and the revisional authority ordered that K would not hear the matter. The matter was ordered to be posted before other officer. Before the matter could be heard by that officer, however, he was transferred. Again, the question arose for placemet of the revision. The case of the petitioner is that when the papers were placed before respondet No.2, he had passed the order that the matter should be heard by Mr. K. The action was objected to, but meanwhile the order was already passed against the petitioner by K. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred a revision, wherein interim relief was granted. Against that order present respondents No.3 to 5 approached this Court by invoking Article 22 of the Constitution by filing CMPMO No.51 of 2000, which came to be finally disposed of by me on 26th April, 2001. At that time also, it was contended before this Court by the present petition that the action of present respondent No.2 in placing the matter before K was not in consonance with law. Moreover, a statement, made in the order dated 24th October, 2000 that the learned counsel for the present petitioner did not object to placement of the matter before K was factually incorrect. In view of the fact, however, that the impugned revision was pending before the revisional authority, I expressed no opinion on merits of the matter and disposed of the petition by keeping all contentions open. 7. There was subsequent development thereafter. The officer, before whom revision petition under Section 54 of the Act was pending, was transferred. Obviously, therefore, the question arose for placement of the revision. Since respondent No.2 was the only officer, who was holding the post of Director who could hear the matter under Section 54 of the Act, the petitioner submitted an application on 3rd August, 2001 that respondent No.2 should net hear the matter. The petitioner alleged that though an application was made to respondent No.2, he refused to accept the same. Since respondent No.2 was the only officer, who was holding the post of Director who could hear the matter under Section 54 of the Act, the petitioner submitted an application on 3rd August, 2001 that respondent No.2 should net hear the matter. The petitioner alleged that though an application was made to respondent No.2, he refused to accept the same. A copy of the application is produced alongwith the preset petition. It was also stated that considering his biased approach, as also the order dated 24th October, 2000, the petitioner would not get justice from him. It was, therefore, submitted that an appropriate order may be passed either transferring the matter to some other officer or not to hear the matter till other Director is appointed. 8. Mr. Chauhan learned Deputy Advocate General for respondent’s No. 1 and 2 stated that respondent No.2 has filed an affidavit. In the preliminary submission itself, in paragraph (ii), the deponent (respondent No.2), has stated that he has "no objection" if the case is ordered to be kept pending till the officer is changed. He, however, made it clear that it is not correct that an application was submitted on 3rd August, 2001 and it was not taken by respondent No.2. The deponent has clarified that the petitioner had moved an application on 3rd August, 2001 in the Peshi Branch after the case was adjourned to 10th August, 2001. An appropriate order could have been passed on 10th August by respondent No.2, but before that the petitioner had approached thi% Court on 7th August 2001 and on 9th August, 2001, interim relief was also obtained by him. He refuted the averments made and allegations levelled against him so far as the so called biased attitude is concerned. He also stated that at an earlier occasion, the matter was placed before K in view of the fact that he was the only officer, who could deal with the matter. 9. On behalf of the contesting respondent No.3 to 5, Mr. Ajay Sharma, learned counsel strongly contested the matter. He urged that the present petition is not maintainable since an order dated 24th October, 2000 was never challenged by the petitioner and it has attained finality. 9. On behalf of the contesting respondent No.3 to 5, Mr. Ajay Sharma, learned counsel strongly contested the matter. He urged that the present petition is not maintainable since an order dated 24th October, 2000 was never challenged by the petitioner and it has attained finality. Moverover, in the order itself, it was stated that the learned counsel for the present petitioner had no objection, if the matter is placed before K. It, therefore, does no lie in the mouth of the petitioner that he had objected against the placement of matter before K. Moreover, no affidavit of the counsel was filed controverting that the state/net in the order was incorrect. The counsel also stated that as per settled law if a statement is found in the order and if a party to a litigation disputes the said statement, the only remedy available to him is to get the record straight by approaching the said officer and by seeking necessary clarification. Mr. Sharma also contended that it is now contended by the petitioner that the matter is not very old and can wait. But in past, when present respondents No.3 to 5 approached this Court, no such contention was raised. The petitioner, therefore, blows hot and cold, which is not permissible. Mr. Sharma also submitted that in the light of peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate if this Court while exercising power under Section 227 of the Constitution may itself take up the matter and decide it. Alternatively, Mr. Sharma submitted that an appropriate order may be passed so that the matter can be finally decided by an authority under Section 54 of the Act expeditiously. 10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, in my opinion, the petitioner deserves to be partly allowed. Reading the record in the light of earlier decision in CMPMO No.51 of 2000, one thing appears to be clear and it is that even in past, the present petitioner had made grievance against respondent No.2. The matter was placed before X, which was objected by the present petitioner. It was also asserted that though a statement was found in the order dated 24th October, 2000 that learned counsel for the present petitioner did not object to the placement of the matter before K, it was not correct. The matter was placed before X, which was objected by the present petitioner. It was also asserted that though a statement was found in the order dated 24th October, 2000 that learned counsel for the present petitioner did not object to the placement of the matter before K, it was not correct. In the light of the above fact and a complaint, which has been made before the revisional authority as well as before this Court, in my opinion, it would not be proper that respondent No.2 should hear the matter. 11. I may hasten to add that I may not be understood to have upheld the contention of the petitioner about partiality or biased attitude of respondent No.2, but in view of the above averments and past history, it would not be fair that matter should be heard by him. It has bee stated, justice should not only be done, but. Undoubtedly and manifestly be seen to be done". A person should not get an, impresison tat adjudicating authority was biased. May be that such an impression may not be totally well founded but if there is reasonable apprehension in die mind of the litigant, his grievance can be considered. In the case on hand, even in past, an averment was made that a case, which \vas not required to be put before a particular officer and was transferred, was again placed before the same officer (may be that he was the only officer available at a particular point of time), coupled with the fact that it was alleged that though the order was purported to have been passed on concession of the learned counsel for the petitioner which was disputed, in my opinion, it would be appropriate, if the State Government i.e. the Secretary (Revenue) to the Government Himachal Pradesh, in exercise of the power under Section 54 of the Act would decide the revision. 12. I must also state to the fairness of respondent No.2 that he has clearly and unreservedly stated in the affidavit that he has no objection if the case is transferred to any other officer or kept pending. I must also state to the fairnes.1 of respondents No.3 to 5 represented by Mr. 12. I must also state to the fairness of respondent No.2 that he has clearly and unreservedly stated in the affidavit that he has no objection if the case is transferred to any other officer or kept pending. I must also state to the fairnes.1 of respondents No.3 to 5 represented by Mr. Ajay Sharma learned counsel who had stated that respondents No.3 to 5 have no objection, if the matter it heard and decided by any officer or by the State Government or by this Court. So far as this Court is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner has also stated that he has no objection, if this Court decides the matter. 13. In my opinion, however, when revision will be decided, that order can be challenged by an aggrieved party in this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. It would, therefore, not be appropriate that this Court will exercise power of revisioal authority, as in that case, an aggrieved party would be deprived of the remedy available to him. 14. For the foregoing reasons, in my opinion, the petition deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. Respondent No.2 will not hear the revision petition. The revision will be heard by the Secretary (Revenue) to the Government i of Himachal Pradesh. Let the matter be heard by the Secretary (Revenue) on behalf of the State Government in exercise of power under Section 54 of the Act. 15. Before parting with the matter, I may clarify that I may not be understood to have observed anything on merits of the matter or on the. averments made and allegations levelled against respondent No.2 by the petitioner. As and when the matter will be placed before the Secretary (Revenue), he will decide the same on its own merits without eing influenced in any manner whatsoever by the observations made by me hereinabove. It was stated at the Bar that the next hearing was fixed on 21st September, 2001. Let on that day, the parties personally or through their counsel remain present before the Secretary (Revenue) and the Secretary (Revenue) will pass an appropriate order. CMP No. 98 of 2001 16. In view of the disposal of the petition, the present application stands disposed of and interim relief granted on 9th August, 2! 01 stands vacated. 17. Dasti copy on usual terms.