JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya),J. Heard Sri H.M. Srivastava for the petitioners. The writ petition has been filed against the order of Additional Director of Consolidation (Technical) dated 9.6.2016, dismissing the transfer application of the petitioners for transferring the case from the court of Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Mainpuri to any other court of competent jurisdiction in the district. Suraj Singh and others filed an appeal from the order of Consolidation Officer dated 14.7.2005 along with a delay condonation application, on 24.8.2015. In this appeal they have raised ground that sale deed on the basis of which names of petitioners were recorded in the proceeding under Section 9 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") were forged sale deeds and the order was passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to them. The petitioners appeared in the appeal before the appellate court and 4.4.2016 was the date fixed. A perusal of the order sheet dated 4.4.2016 shows that the arguments of the appellants were heard on that day and counsel for the petitioners sought adjournment, which was allowed and 22.4.2016 was the date fixed for arguments of the petitioners. On 22.4.2016 again petitioners sought adjournment and the case was adjourned and 2.5.2016 was the date fixed. On 2.5.2016 again the petitioners sought for adjournment. The case was adjourned giving liberty to the petitioners to file written argument upto 5.5.2016 and 7.5.2016 was the date fixed for delivery of the order. The petitioners moved an application for transferring the appeal before Consolidation Commissioner, U.P. Lucknow on 4.5.2016. In the transfer application, the petitioners have stated that the Settlement Officer, Consolidation has wrongly noted in the order dated 22.4.2016, that the arguments were heard on behalf of the appellants. Although petitioner-1 was present in the court and the counsel for the appellants did not advance any argument in the court. It has been further alleged that the Settlement Officer, Consolidation has struck a deal with appellants and he wants to allow the appeal without hearing the arguments of any of the parties and she has no hope of justice from the court of present Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Mainpuri. This transfer application was heard by Additional Director of Consolidation (Technical), who by the impugned order found that the allegations made in the transfer application are vague and not supported with any affidavit as such transfer application was rejected. This transfer application was heard by Additional Director of Consolidation (Technical), who by the impugned order found that the allegations made in the transfer application are vague and not supported with any affidavit as such transfer application was rejected. Hence, this writ petition has been filed. The counsel for the petitioners with the help of photostat copy of the order sheet of appeal pointed out that on 4.4.2016 the order sheet was signed by Suraj Singh and not by his counsel and on behalf of petitioners, it was signed by their counsel. Further on 22.4.2016, the order sheet was signed by the counsel for the petitioners alone. Similarly on 2.5.2016 also order sheet was signed by the counsel for the petitioners alone. The petitioners specifically raised the ground that on 4.4.2016 no argument was raised by the appellants as their counsel did not appear in the court although petitioner-1 was present in the court. Thus apprehension in the mind of the petitioners that Settlement Officer, Consolidation will allow the appeal without hearing the argument as he has struck a deal with the appellants is a reasonable apprehension of the petitioners and they will not get justice from him. Although petitioner has prayed for transferring the appeal within the district to other court but the Additional Director of Consolidation (Technical) has noted that transfer application has been filed for transferring the appeal to another district. Thus, transfer application has been rejected without considering the allegations made by the petitioners. The attitude of the Presiding Officer in reserving the judgment without hearing arguments is arbitrary as such the appeal is liable to be transferred from the court of present Presiding Officer. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the petitioners. There is nothing on record to show that Smt.Sriwati, petitioner no.1, was present in the court on 4.4.2016, 22.4.2016 and 2.5.2016. Thus, her allegation that she was present and no argument was advanced by the appellants is not liable to be believed as in the order sheet Presiding Officer has noted that argument of the appellants was heard. The normal practice before the court below is while adjourning the case, in order to give notice of future date, the signature of the counsel or parties is obtained on the order sheet. A perusal of the order dated 4.4.2016 shows that signature of Suraj Singh was obtained on the order sheet. The normal practice before the court below is while adjourning the case, in order to give notice of future date, the signature of the counsel or parties is obtained on the order sheet. A perusal of the order dated 4.4.2016 shows that signature of Suraj Singh was obtained on the order sheet. Thus, even if signature of advocate was not made then only on its basis, it cannot be presumed that counsel for the appellants was not present in the court. For the different initials relating to signature of advocates on 4.4.2016, 24.4.2016 and 2.5.2016 no details have been given as to they belonged to which advocate. Similarly, the allegation that the Presiding Officer has struck a deal with appellants and is bent upon to allow the appeal is also not supported from any material on record. It is a general allegation and vague in nature inasmuch as there was no witness to the cracking of a deal with the Presiding Officer in the matter. Thus, without giving exact particulars like, date, time, place and person with whom deal was made, a vague allegation was made, which has been disbelieved by the statutory authority. This Court in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction has no reason to take contrary view as taken by Additional Director of Consolidation (Technical), U.P. However, as judgment was reserved on 2.5.2016 and three months have been passed. If Settlement Officer, Consolidation has not pronounced the judgment yet, then it will be appropriate for him that he may fix a date for further hearing of the arguments of the parties. Both the parties may advance their arguments on the date so fixed. Subject to aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of.