JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya),J. Heard Sri Anil Kumar Aditya for the petitioner and Sri Shailendra Kumar Singh for the caveator. The writ petition has been filed against the order of Additional Director of Consolidation (Technical) dated 2.8.2016 by which the application of the petitioner for transferring the appeal from the court of Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Varanasi to any other court has been rejected. A perusal of the transfer application shows that against the order of Consolidation Officer passed in the proceeding under Section 12 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as ?the Act?), on 17.12.2013 an appeal was filed by the petitioner. The petitioner raised objection in the proceeding under Section 12 of the Act on the ground that original tenure holder had mortgaged the property in dispute in favour of the petitioner on 7.10.1997. Therefore, the original tenure holder has no right to sell the property in dispute during continuance of the mortgage. However, Consolidation Officer has not accepted the plea of the petitioner and directed for mutation of the name of Smt. Shanti Devi over the land in dispute. At the time of admission of the appeal the petitioner has filed an application for interim order. Smt. Shanti Devi appeared before the appellate court as she had filed caveat. Settlement Officer, Consolidation after hearing the parties by order dated 3.2.2016 rejected the stay application of the petitioner. The petitioner challenged the order dated 3.2.2016 in revision, which was allowed by Deputy Director of Consolidation and operation of the order of Consolidation Officer dated 17.12.2015 was stayed. Thereafter the case was listed before Settlement Officer, Consolidation on 11.4.2016. On that date the petitioner stated that notice of the appeal was not served upon respondents-2 and 3 but the Settlement Officer, Consolidation observed that there was no need to serve notice to respondents-2 and 3 who were proforma parties and he insisted the counsel for the petitioner for argument in the appeal on merit. He adjourned the appeal on 11.4.2016 and fixed on 25.4.2016. But thereafter the case was adjourned for 18.5.2016. On that day request was made by the counsel for the petitioner that Smt. Shanti Devi had died and he had to move an application for substitution of her heirs but Presiding Officer insisted for argument on merit without substituting heirs. He adjourned the case on the cost of Rs.100/- and fixed 1.6.2016. On that day request was made by the counsel for the petitioner that Smt. Shanti Devi had died and he had to move an application for substitution of her heirs but Presiding Officer insisted for argument on merit without substituting heirs. He adjourned the case on the cost of Rs.100/- and fixed 1.6.2016. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation has already disclosed his mind in the order dated 3.2.2016 as well as his attitude for insisting for argument in the case on merit even without service of notice upon respondents as well as without substitution of the heirs of deceased-respondent shows that he was inclined to decide the appeal against the petitioner and he has no hope of justice from him. On these allegations, the application for transfer has been filed. Additional Director of Consolidation (Technical) after hearing the parties found that there is no substance in the transfer application and rejected it. Hence this writ petition has been filed. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the petitioner. A perusal of the order sheet shows that the case was listed before Settlement Officer, Consolidation on 11.4.2016 and on that day adjournment was taken by the petitioner, which was granted and 25.4.2016 was fixed. Thereafter again the petitioner took adjournment and again 18.5.2016 was the date fixed. On 18.5.2016 the petitioner took adjournment for filing substitution application. The only heir of Smt. Shanti Devi namely, Akash Singh was appearing before the court, therefore, although court granted adjournment but imposed cost of Rs.100/- upon the petitioner. Thus, it cannot be said that the petitioner was not accommodated by the Presiding Officer. On the request of the petitioner the case was adjourned four times. So far as allegation that Presiding Officer has already disclosed his mind in order dated 3.2.2016 is concerned, it was made without going through the record on the interim application. Now, the record might have been summoned and the appeal shall be decided on the basis the evidence on the record. As such there was no ground for transferring the appeal. No interference is required by this Court. In any case, it is provided that while deciding the appeal the Presiding Officer may not be influenced by the order dated 3.2.2016. With the aforesaid observation the writ petition is disposed of.