JUDGMENT Anil Kumar, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri M. E. Khan, learned Standing Counsel and perused the record. 2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 06.09.2011 passed by opposite party no.1/Additional Director of Consolidation (Pra.) U.P., Lucknow thereby rejecting the petitioner's application for transfer filed under Rule 65 (2) of U.P.C.H. Act. 3. The factual controversy involved in the present case is that the petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 12.12.2014 passed by Consolidation Officer, Sadar had preferred an appeal No.482/14-15 under Section 11 (1) of U. P. C. H. Act (hereinafter referred to as Act) before the opposite party no.2/Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Bahraich. 4. During the pendency of said appeal, on 25.07.2016, she moved an application for transfer of the matter from the Court of opposite party no.2 to another court under Rule 65 (2) of U.P.C.H. Act. Opposite party no.1 vide order dated 06.09.2011 had rejected the said application with the finding that the grounds which are taken by the petitioner for transfer of the matter in question are not sufficient and imaginary one. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner while challenging the impugned order submits that the order in question is in contravention to the principles of natural justice and the matter may be transferred from the Court of opposite party no.2 to another court. 6. He further submits that opposite party no.2 had started acting on his whims and fancies as well as under the influence of local District President Luxmi Narayan Yadav of Ruling Govt. of Samajwadi Party and also of Ex M.L.A./Sri Ram Tej Yadav of Kaiserganj Constituency. It is pertinent to mention herein that Ex. M.L.A./Sri Ram Tej Yadav is close relative of opposite party no.3 as the daughter of real uncle of opposite party no.3 is married with Sri Pradeep Yadav, Advocate, who is son of real brother of Ex M.L.A./Sri Ram Tej Yadav and is also effective leader of samajwadi Party. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records. 8. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records. 8. In order to decide the controversy involved in the present case, it will be appropriate to go through the relevant provisions of Rule 65 (2) of U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954, which reads as under : - "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." 9. So far as argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order is in violation of principles of natural justice as no opportunity of hearing whatsoever has been given to the petitioner prior to passing the impugned order does not holds good as from the bare perusal of the impugned judgement, the position which emerges out is that she has been given adequate opportunity to put forward her case. So the said argument has got no force in view of the judgment given by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Shiv Sagar Tiwari vs. Union of India 1997 (1) SCC 444 , relevant paras 48 and 49 are quoted herein as under: - "Para 48- May it also be stated that it is well settled that requirements of natural justice can be stated in such a way as to take care of two basic facets of this principle: (1) to make known the nature of accusation; and (2) to give opportunity to state the case, as accepted by this Court in Hira Nath Mishra vs. Principal, Rajendra Medical College. In Subhash Chandra case it has been even held that no hearing is required to be given to the candidates before cancelling the examination where mass-copying was indulged, if a case for the same was otherwise made out. Present is also a case of large-scale out of turn allotments, and so, on principle no hearing at all might have been given. But we did not go to that extent and gave even personal hearing to many among those who chose to appear pursuant to the notice published in the newspaper, which alone was feasible. All the allottes liable to be adversely affected being in Delhi and being well educated, newspaper publication was definitely sufficient to enable them to know what they must have been informed. All the allottes liable to be adversely affected being in Delhi and being well educated, newspaper publication was definitely sufficient to enable them to know what they must have been informed. Indeed, the employees concerned were knowing much aliunde also. Para 49 Natural justice is after all " no unruly horse, no lurking land mine" as characterstically stated by Krishna Iyer, J. in Chairman Board of Mining Examination and Chief Inspector of Mines vs. Ramjee. Its unnatural expansion without reference to these realities can be "exasperating" as observed by the learned Judge. It is also worthwhile to remember, as stated in para 24 of S.L. Kapoor vs. Jagmohan that where on admitted or indisputable facts only one conclusion is possible, the Court may not compel the observance of natural justice, as it would be futile to do so. The real point for determination for us has been whether the incumbent got the allotment as per his turn or he jumped the queue, on the face of our rejection to depart from the existing policy requiring eviction of those also included in Categories VI and X. This we got examined well and have felt satisfied at the work undertaken by the Committee in this regard." 10. Next argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner that opposite party no.2 is under the influence of local District President Luxmi Narayan Yadav of Ruling Govt. of Samajwadi Party and also of Ex M.L.A./Sri Ram Tej Yadav of Kaiserganj Constituency, who is close relative of opposite party no.3 and in respect of the same, pleading has been made in paragraph 8 of the writ petition and on the basis of which, the case of malice is not established against the opposite party no.2 before whom appeal is pending for which transfer application has been moved, rejected. 11. Further, If every step in the decision making process is viewed with suspicion the integrity of the entire process shall be jeopardized. Officers taking views in the decision making process will feel handicapped in expressing their opinions freely and frankly for fear of being seen to be doing so for mala fides reasons which would in turn affect public interest. Nothing in the instant case was done without a reasonable or probable cause which is the very essence of the doctrine of malice in law vitiating administrative actions." 12. Nothing in the instant case was done without a reasonable or probable cause which is the very essence of the doctrine of malice in law vitiating administrative actions." 12. Moreover, the person against whom personal mala fides or 'malice in fact' and 'malice in law ' is imputed should be impleaded as a party respondent to the proceedings and he should be afforded opportunity to meet with those allegations. In his absence, no enquiry into the correctness or otherwise of the allegations can be made. The reason is very simple. The principles of natural justice require that no person should be condemned unheard. Now if allegations have been made against a person who is not made party to the proceedings and the court proceeds on the basis of those allegations, the person against whom such allegations have been levelled is condemned unheard. 13. So, I don't find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order under challenge in the present writ petition. 14. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed.