JUDGMENT : Sangeeta Chandra, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners. 2. This Court has earlier passed an order dated 18.11.2019. The relevant portion of which is reproduced herein below: "Submission of learned Counsel for the petitioners is that by means of the order dated 21.12.2018 passed in Writ Petition No. 37934 (Consolidation) of 2018, the case under sections 12 and 9-A of the Act were decided in favour of the opposite party No. 2 and objection filed by the petitioners was rejected. Therefore, the petitioners had filed an appeal bearing No. 1548 under section 11(1) of the U.P.C.H. Act before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Ayodhya. After hearing both the parties, the said appeal has been admitted and the order passed by the lower Court has been stayed till the next date of listing by means of the order dated 09.08.2019. Thereafter, the opposite party No. 2 filed an objection for transfer of the appeal which was registered as T.A. No. 724 of 2019. The application was filed alleging therein that the relative of the petitioners and the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, who has passed the order are of one and the same place in Sultanpur. It was specifically denied by the petitioner in the objection filed against the said application. Objection was filed by the petitioners, but without considering the same and merely on the basis of the apprehension of the opposite party No. 2, the appeal has been transferred from Ayodhya to Barabanki by means of the order dated 06.11.2019. The transfer is at a distance of about 200 kilometres, therefore, the petitioner would face difficulty in contesting the appeal. He further submitted that the order has been passed by the Additional Commissioner of Consolidation, Lucknow while under the Rule, the transfer can be made only by the Director of Consolidation, therefore this order is without jurisdiction also. Shri Ram Swaroop, learned Standing Counsel for the opposite party No. 1 and Shri Rama Pati Shukla, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 pray for and are granted three days' time to seek instructions. List on 20.11.2019 as fresh. Till the next date of listing, the operation and implementation of the order dated 6.11.2019 passed by the Addl. Commissioner of Consolidation, Lucknow in T.A. No. 724 of 2019 shall remain stayed. List on 20.11.2019 as fresh. Till the next date of listing, the operation and implementation of the order dated 6.11.2019 passed by the Addl. Commissioner of Consolidation, Lucknow in T.A. No. 724 of 2019 shall remain stayed. The interim u shall not be extended on the next date without hearing." Thereafter when the case was listed before this Court on 20.11.2019, this Court passed a detailed order. The relevant portion of which is quoted as under: "In the instructions that have been sent on the query of the Court, it has come out that under section 3(4), the definition of Consolidation Commissioner has been shown, which includes and Additional Commissioner and a Joint Commissioner also. Moreover, the Consolidation Commissioner by an order No. 325/E-123/2019 (Karya Vibhajan) dated 8.5.2019 has delegated the power to transfer cases under Rule 65(2) to the Additional Commissioner. This Court has seen the work allocation order dated 8.5.2019 annexed along with the said instructions dated 19.11.2019. The instructions dated 19.11.2019 are being taken on record. Apparently, the Additional Commissioner, Consolidation was empowered both under the Act and the Rules to exercise the power of transfer. Such a transfer has, therefore, been made. However, with regard to wrongful exercise of power of transfer, the petitioners' contention that the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Ayodhya is related to the petitioners being taken into account for such transfer, there is no instructions available with the learned Standing Counsel. Learned Standing Counsel shall seek instructions from the Consolidation Officer with regard to whether the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Ayodhya, who was considering the appeal, was indeed related to the petitioners in any manner or that he belongs to District Sultanpur as alleged. List this matter after three days on Monday i.e. 25.11.2019. Interim order, if any, granted earlier by this Court is extended till the next date of listing." 3. Today when the case was taken up, learned Standing Counsel has produced a copy of instructions sent by S.O.C., Ayodhya dated 20.11.2019 before this Court. It is apparent from the said instructions that the S.O.C., Ayodhya is not related in any manner to the petitioner Nos. 1 to 3, either through marriage or through relationship. It has also been submitted in the said instructions sent by the S.O.C. Ayodhya that he has recently joined at Ayodhya in pursuance of the transfer order dated 12.07.2019 from District-Hamirpur. 1 to 3, either through marriage or through relationship. It has also been submitted in the said instructions sent by the S.O.C. Ayodhya that he has recently joined at Ayodhya in pursuance of the transfer order dated 12.07.2019 from District-Hamirpur. His permanent address is Village-Pandeypur, District-Sultanpur. 4. From a perusal of the instructions sent by the S.O.C., Ayodhya being kept on record, it is evident that the S.O.C., Ayodhya has no relation at all to the petitioners. The transfer of the case from Ayodhya to Barabanki vide order dated 06.11.2019 appears to be vitiated and passed only on baseless grounds against the S.O.C., Ayodhya. 5. Sri R.P. Shukla appearing for the private respondent has placed before this Court a judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Hari Shankar v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others 1970 RD 167. Learned Counsel has emphasized the observations made by the Supreme Court in the second paragraph of the judgment, which are being quoted herein below: "The appellant's allegation that the contesting respondents-Counsel and the Deputy Director of Consolidation were relations stands unrefuted. The Deputy Director did not make any formal order rejecting the prayer for adjournment of the case nor did he record in his order in the revision petition that there was no basis for the allegation that the contesting respondents' Counsel was his relation. In fact his order does not even refer to the prayer made by the Counsel for the appellant for adjournment of the case and his refusal to grant the same. It merely mentions that when the case was taken up for hearing, the appellant's Counsel went away. But all the relevant facts are available from the order made by Mr. Sharma on the review application. We think that the Deputy Director of Consolidation was not well advised in refusing to grant the adjournment asked for particularly in view of the fact that he did not deny that the Counsel for the contesting respondents was his relation. Naturally the appellant had reasons to believe that he may not get justice at the hands of Sri Satya Prakash. It is a common saying that justice must not only be done but it must appear to have been done." 6. Naturally the appellant had reasons to believe that he may not get justice at the hands of Sri Satya Prakash. It is a common saying that justice must not only be done but it must appear to have been done." 6. This Court finds the facts to be different in this case as in this case, the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Ayodhya has sent written instructions to the office of the Chief Standing Counsel, saying that he has no relations whatsoever with the petitioner, either through marriage or through blood. Moreover, it is of no consequence as to where the case has been transferred in case of such transfer to either of the parties as no litigant has a preferential right for being heard at a particular forum alone. 7. It is expected that the consolidation authorities, who are Courts of law shall be governed only by law. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Ayodhya or any other Settlement Officer of Consolidation, would decide a matter only in accordance with law and not otherwise. 8. The judgment rendered in 1970 by the Supreme Court as cited hereinabove was in the facts and circumstances of that particular case alone, where the reasonable apprehension expressed by a party was indeed made out from the conduct of the Deputy Director of Consolidation, who rejected the prayer for adjournment and also did not refute the fact that he was a relation to respondents Counsel. Only reasonable apprehension can be entertained. No figment of imagination of a litigant can persuade this Court to transfer the case from one Court to another. 9. Since the appeal was being heard and was at the final stage, the transfer application could not have been entertained without there being specific allegations, showing from the application itself, the biased conduct of the Settlement Officer of Consolidation. 10. This Court cannot direct the transfer only on presumption being raised. 11. The impugned order dated 6.11.2019 being passed merely on presumption is set aside. 12. Let the matter be decided by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Ayodhya strictly in accordance with law at the earliest, say within a period of three months from the date, a certified copy of this order is produced before him.