# Rubi Zehra & Ors v. State of U.P & Anr - **Citation:** (2016) 5 ILRA 451 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2016-05-13 - **Bench:** Mrs. Vijay Lakshmi - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rubi-zehra-ors-v-state-of-u-p-anr-43852 - **Pages:** 3 ## Headnote Transfer - Lucknow Bench Has Exclusive Jurisdiction - Application u/s 407 Cr.P.C. for transfer of Criminal Case No. 934 of 2014 (Sections 452, 323, 504, 427 IPC, P.S. Jaidpur, District Barabanki) from ACJM Court No. 19, Barabanki to District Hapur; Held, District Barabanki falls within Oudh areas under jurisdiction of Lucknow Bench; Principal Bench at Allahabad not competent in absence of Chief Justice's order under second proviso to Article 14 of Amalgamation Order, 1948 - Transfer Application dismissed as not maintainable; liberty granted to file fresh application before Lucknow Bench. (Paras 1-3) 452 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES Principal Bench Not Competent Without Chief Justice's Order - Applicant contended that Principal Bench has jurisdiction over all cases irrespective of territorial seat; Held, Constitution Bench in Nasiruddin (supra) authoritatively settled that Lucknow Bench Judges alone are competent to hear cases from specified Oudh areas; later Constitution Bench judgment prevails over other cited precedents - contention repelled. (Paras 2-4) Transfer Application Dismissed Case Law Discussed: ## Text 5 All. Rubi Zehra & Ors. Vs State Of U.P. & Anr. 451 between the parties and their plea has been affirmed, now they have no right to say that they had lease hold right only in the piece of land measuring 15872 sq. ft. and had sold the same right to the petitioner company and after the execution of sale deed the petitioner company acquired the same right for the remaining period of lease and property stood reverted back to original lessor /legal heir of the lessor after the expiry of the period of the said lease. Therefore, act of respondent no. 4 herein issuing No Dues certificate dated 21.07.2015 in favour of respondent no. 5 and by mentioning therein that lease /legal right, if any, available to PICUP shall stand released in favour of M/s Surprise Hotels Pvt. Ltd./ guarantors and legal heirs of promoters /guarantors is wholly illegal, unjust and unwarranted and needs to be quashed. 36. In view of the aforesaid discussion, petition is partly allowed and the letter dated 21.07.2015 issued by respondent no.4, so far as it relates to providing Photostat copies of title deeds, including lease deed and releasing lease /legal rights in favour of borrower company, guarantor /legal heirs of promoter/guarantor is hereby quashed and respondent no.1 to 4 are commanded not to interfere in the peaceful possession of petitioner over the property in question in the garb of aforesaid letter. 37. There shall be no order as to costs. ---------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.05.2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. VIJAY LAKSHMI, J. Transfer Application (Criminal) No.- 133 Of 2016 Rubi Zehra & Ors. ...Applicants Versus State of U.P & Anr. ...Opposite Parties Counsel for the Applicants: Shiv Shankar Pd Gupta, Girijesh Kumar Gupta Counsel for the Opposite Parties: G.A ................................. Transfer - Lucknow Bench Has Exclusive Jurisdiction - Application u/s 407 Cr.P.C. for transfer of Criminal Case No. 934 of 2014 (Sections 452, 323, 504, 427 IPC, P.S. Jaidpur, District Barabanki) from ACJM Court No. 19, Barabanki to District Hapur; Held, District Barabanki falls within Oudh areas under jurisdiction of Lucknow Bench; Principal Bench at Allahabad not competent in absence of Chief Justice's order under second proviso to Article 14 of Amalgamation Order, 1948 - Transfer Application dismissed as not maintainable; liberty granted to file fresh application before Lucknow Bench. (Paras 1-3) 452 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES Principal Bench Not Competent Without Chief Justice's Order - Applicant contended that Principal Bench has jurisdiction over all cases irrespective of territorial seat; Held, Constitution Bench in Nasiruddin (supra) authoritatively settled that Lucknow Bench Judges alone are competent to hear cases from specified Oudh areas; later Constitution Bench judgment prevails over other cited precedents - contention repelled. (Paras 2-4) Transfer Application Dismissed Case Law Discussed: 1. Nasiruddin v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, 1975(2) SCC 671 2. Union of India v. Chheda Lal Ram Autar, AIR 1958 Allahabad 652 3. Order dated 8.12.2014 in Transfer Application (Civil) No. 247 of 2014, Shaziya Khanm v. Shiftain Khan (Allahabad High Court) (Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Vijay Lakshmi, J.) 1. This is an application under section 407 Cr.P.C. praying for transfer of the Criminal Case No. 934 of 2014, under Section 452, 323, 504, 427 I.P.C. P.S. Jaidpur, District Barabanki, presently pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 19, Barabanki, to some other court of competent jurisdiction of district Hapur. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA. Perused the record. 3. The office has reported that this transfer application is not maintainable as the jurisdiction of Barabanki lies in Lucknow Bench of this High court. 4. The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that being the principal Bench, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, has jurisdiction to hear all the cases notwithstanding whether they relate to the districts coming under the jurisdiction of Lucknow Bench or coming under main seat of this High Court. The learned counsel for the applicant, in support of his contentions has placed reliance on the following judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court and also of this Court: I. 1975(2) SCC 671, Nasiruddin Vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal. II. AIR 1958 Allahabad 652, Union of India Vs. Chheda Lal Ram Autar. III. Order dated 8.12.2014 passed by this Court in Transfer Application (Civil) No. 247 of 2014, Shaziya Khanm Vs. Shiftain Khan. 5. I have carefully perused all these judgments. The judgment rendered in the Case of Nasiruddin (supra) being decided by the Constitution Bench of four Hon'ble Judges of the Supreme Court and being passed on a later date, will prevail over the two other judgments filed by the applicant. 6. In the case of Nasiruddin (supra) the Apex Court has clarified the legal position by quoting Article 14 of the Amalgamation Order of 1948, which is as follows: 5 All. Mahavir Vs State Of U.P. 453 "14. The new High Court, and the judges and division Courts thereof, shall sit at Allahabad or at such other places in the United Provinces as the Chief Justice may, with the approval of the Governor of the United Provinces appoint: "Provided that unless the Governor of the United Provinces with the concurrence of the Chief Justice, otherwise directs, such judges of the new High Court, not less than two in number, as the Chief Justice, may, from time to time nominate, shall sit at Lucknow in order to exercise in respect of cases arising in such areas in Oudh, as the Chief Justice may direct, the jurisdiction and power for the time being vested in the new High Court; Provided further that the Chief Justice may in his discretion order that any case or class of cases arising in the said areas shall be heard at Allahabad." 7. The hon'ble Apex Court while interpreting the second proviso to Article 14 of the Order, quoted above, has held that the Judges at Lucknow Bench are alone competent to hear the cases arising in the specified Oudh areas and unless there is an order of the Chief Justice under the second proviso the case shall be heard at Lucknow. It is the order of the Chief Justice alone, which enables such cases being heard at Allahabad. 8. So far as the present case is concerned, there is no order of the Hon'ble Chief Justice enabling this court to hear this matter. As the present case has to be transferred from the district of Barabanki, which comes under the jurisdiction of Lucknow Bench, hence the matter should be heard by the Lucknow Bench of this High Court. 9. In view of the above, the transfer application is dismissed as not maintainable with liberty to the applicant to file a fresh Transfer Application before the appropriate Bench at Lucknow. ---------- APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.05.2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SHASHI KANT GUPTA, J. THE HON'BLE KAUSHAL JAYENDRA THAKER, J. Criminal Appeal No.- 146 Of 1984 Mahavir ...Appellant Versus State of U.P. ...Respondent Counsel for the Appellant: