JUDGMENT : Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. Sri Amit Srivastava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 7 on caveat. 3. By means of the instant petition, the petitioner assails the order dated 31.03.2021 which has been passed by the respondent no. 1 by means of which a transfer application moved by the petitioner has been rejected. 4. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is a 81 years old lady. The proceedings are pending before the Consolidation Courts in District Gautam Budh Nagar. The main contesting respondent is Sri Ved Prakash who is a counsel practicing within the District Gauam Budh Nagar and he yields such influence that the matter has not yet been decided despite the repeated orders passed by the Consolidation Courts including the orders passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court at Allahabad, a copy of which has been brought on record as Annexure No. 3 with the writ petition. 5. It is submitted that under these circumstances, the petitioner has already exhausted her remedies of getting the matter expedited but yet at the behest of the respondent no. 7, the matter has yet not been decided, accordingly, on the aforesaid ground, the transfer application was moved that the matter may be transferred from District Gautam Budh Nagar to any other district for its expeditious disposal. 6. The learned Standing Counsel and the counsel for the respondent no. 7 have raised an objection that since the proceedings are pending before the Court at District Gautam Budh Nagar, accordingly, this Court does not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the matter. 7. Having considered the aforesaid objections, it would reveal that the order under challenge is dated 31.03.2021 which has been passed in terms of Rule 65 (2) of the U.P.C.H. Rules 1954 by the Additional Commissioner, Consolidation at Lucknow. Since the order impugned has been passed at Lucknow which is within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court and it is now well settled that any Court where even part of the cause of action arises, the Court would have the jurisdiction. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to sustain the objections raised by the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel as well as for the respondent no. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to sustain the objections raised by the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel as well as for the respondent no. 7, accordingly, the same is turned down. 8. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner on merits and from perusal of the record, the ground as raised by the petitioner for seeking transfer of the proceedings outside the district of District Gautam Budh Nagar on the ground that the respondent no. 7 has considerable influence over the Authority being an Advocate practicing in the aforesaid district and thus the matter be transferred outside the District Gautam Budh Nagar. This does not appear to be a cogent ground, inasmuch as, the issue of transfer is a serious matter. Except for the delay part, there does not appear to be any cogent material to indicate that the matter should be transferred outside of the District. 9. At this stage, it will be relevant to notice the order passed by the coordinate Bench dated 11.12.2019 and the relevant portion reads as under:- "At this point of time, counsel for the parties are agreed that although three months time was granted by the respondent No.1 to the Consolidation Officer to decide the matter which is short for deciding the appeal and as such it is prayed that a reasonable time period be framed for the Consolidation Officer to decide the matter. Considering the prayer made at this stage, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the issue, the Consolidation Officer Gautambudh Nagar is directed to consider and decide the Case No.12 under Section 12 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (Smt. Anardei Vs. Karan Singh) in accordance with law expeditiously within a period of one year from the date of production of certified copy of this order but certainly after giving opportunity to the parties concerned and without granting unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties" 10. It will be noticed that after the time granted by this Court to conclude the proceedings, the entire country was hit by Covid-19 pandemic which severely affected the functioning of the Courts. 11. Be that as it may, Sri Amit Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent no. 7-Ved Prakash states that he has the instructions to give an undertaking on behalf of the respondent no. 7 that the allegation made against the respondent no. 11. Be that as it may, Sri Amit Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent no. 7-Ved Prakash states that he has the instructions to give an undertaking on behalf of the respondent no. 7 that the allegation made against the respondent no. 7 are misfounded rather he is ready to furnish an affidavit that he shall cooperate in the proceedings and shall appear before the Court concerned on every date and will not seek any adjournment except in exceptional circumstances, further, even if there is a resolution passed by the members of the Bar from abstaining from judicial work, he shall appear. 12. In this view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that no cause is made out to interfere, however, it is noted and provided that the respondent no. 7 shall furnish an undertaking in shape of an affidavit before the Court concerned in terms as mentioned in the preceding paragraph no. 11 within a period of one week from today and the Authority i.e. C.O., Gautam Budh Nagar is directed to consider and decide the Case No.12 under Section 12 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (Smt. Anardei Vs. Karan Singh) in accordance with law expeditiously after affording full opportunity of hearing, preferrably within a period of six months from the date a certified copy of this order is placed before the Court of C.O. ensuring that no unnecessary adjournments are granted to either parties except in exceptional circumstances, and if any party is found misusing the liberty, exemplary cost be imposed to ensure adherence to the time line fixed by this Court. 13. With the aforesaid, the petition is disposed of.