JUDGMENT : M.S. SONAK, J. 1. Heard Mr. De Sa for the Petitioner and Mr. Shirodkar, learned Additional Government Advocate, for Respondent Nos.1, 2, and 3. For the order which is proposed to be made, the presence of Respondent No.4 is not necessary. 2. We issue Rule and with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, make the Rule returnable forthwith. 3. The challenge in this petition is mainly to the order dated 12.01.2022 by which the learned Deputy Collector & SDM, Pernem, Goa has dismissed the Petitioner's application for recusal dated 30.12.2021. 4. The Petitioner has alleged that the Deputy Collector before whom these proceedings are pending, had, along with the talathi, visited the Petitioner's place to exert pressure upon the Petitioner to consent to provide 10 meters access to the neighboring properties. The Petitioner had alleged that initially this access had been acquired by the Government, but such acquisition was struck down by this Court by its Judgment and Order dated 09.06.2017 in Writ Petition No. 85 of 2014. 5. Mr. De Sa submits that considering this background, the Petitioner has a reasonable apprehension that the Deputy Collector will not be in a position to deal with the proceedings in an objective and unbiased manner. 6. Mr. Shirodkar, the learned Additional Government Advocate has pointed out that the allegations made by the Petitioner are quite baseless. He submits that there is a decision for re-acquisition of the Petitioner's property and in terms of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (said Act). He submits that in terms of the procurement policy of the State Government, a committee has to be constituted to persuade the landowners to consent to the acquisition of their properties that are required for a public purpose. He states that the Deputy Collector is the Chairperson of such committee and it is in that capacity that the Deputy Collector had visited the house of the Petitioner and sought his consent for acquisition. Mr. Shirodkar states that there was no question of exerting any pressure and the visit has no nexus whatsoever with the pending proceedings concerning the illegal conversion of land carried out by the Petitioner. 7. In this case, we do not think that we should go into the allegations made by the Petitioner. Mr. Shirodkar states that there was no question of exerting any pressure and the visit has no nexus whatsoever with the pending proceedings concerning the illegal conversion of land carried out by the Petitioner. 7. In this case, we do not think that we should go into the allegations made by the Petitioner. Even if we assume that the allegations of actual or factual bias are not correct, we think that the apprehension expressed by the Petitioner cannot be styled as some unreasonable or malafide apprehension. It may be possible that the Petitioner was confused with the two roles that the Deputy Collector was playing. The Deputy Collector has come to the house of the Petitioner to persuade him to consent to the acquisition of his land and soon thereafter the Petitioner is served with notices alleging illegal conversion by the very same Deputy Collector. The Petitioner is resisting the acquisition of his land and on the previous occasion even succeeded in quashing the acquisition proceedings. The Petitioner has alleged that the acquisition is to provide wider access to a resort in the neighborhood. Having regard to this position, we think that it would be in the fitness of things if the proceedings pending before the Deputy Collector, Pernem, are transferred to some other Deputy Collector. This is precisely the relief sought for by the Petitioner. 8. In such matters, the question is not always whether the judicial or the quasi-judicial authority is actually or factually biased, but the question is whether the apprehension in the mind of the litigant before such authority is a reasonable apprehension or not. In such matters, therefore, the issue of actual or factual bias is not always relevant and once it is established that there was a real likelihood of bias as opposed to some unreasonable or fanciful apprehension in the mind of the litigant, then, normally, the authority should consider the option of recusal. In this case, therefore, without holding that the Deputy Collector was indeed biased, we hold that the apprehension expressed by the Petitioner was not fanciful or unreasonable and that a case of real likelihood was made out. In this context, it would be only appropriate if the proceedings are transferred to some other Deputy Collector so that this apprehension of bias will no longer persist. 9. In this context, it would be only appropriate if the proceedings are transferred to some other Deputy Collector so that this apprehension of bias will no longer persist. 9. The proceedings bearing No.DCP/LRC/ILL-CONV/MORJIM/23/8-2021, pending before the Deputy Collector and SDM, Pernem, Goa are now transferred to the file of Deputy Collector and SDM, Bardez, Goa (at Mapusa), who shall now dispose of the same on their own merits and in accord with the law. Needless to add, the Deputy Collector of Bardez will have to afford reasonable opportunity as contemplated by law to the Petitioner herein. 10. The case papers are directed to be transferred within two weeks from today. Further, the Deputy Collector and SDM of Bardez is directed to dispose of these proceedings as expeditiously as possible and in any case within three months from the date such papers are received. The Petitioner will also have to cooperate with the Deputy Collector of Bardez in the matter of disposal of these proceedings, particularly by not seeking any undue adjournments. 11. The rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. There shall be no order as to costs.