Successor RDO must decide the patta appeal within six months, applying the Division Bench’s ruling.

The petitioner claimed rights in properties at Kumarana Colony, Saligramam, which he alleged respondents 4 and 5 were attempting to obtain through documents attributed to a fictitious person.

Respondent 4 had appealed the rejection of her patta application.

The petitioner sought transfer of that appeal from the seventh respondent, the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), alleging that the RDO had indicated he would not examine whether the alleged testator existed.

During the writ proceedings, the seventh respondent was transferred and replaced; the petitioner then stated that he had no objection to the new officer hearing the appeal on its merits.

Whether the appeal proceedings should be transferred from the seventh respondent to another RDO on the petitioner’s apprehension of bias.

Whether, in light of the change of officer, the Court should direct the RDO currently hearing the appeal to decide it within a specified period and in accordance with the Division Bench judgment.

The petition invoked the High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The Court relied on the Division Bench judgment in O.S.A. Nos. 111, 114 and 115 of 2021 and connected matters, dated 14 July 2026, directing the current RDO to follow its ratio when deciding the appeal.

The petitioner’s request to transfer the appeal arose from his stated apprehension about the seventh respondent’s impartiality. Because that officer had since been transferred and the petitioner accepted that the new officer could hear the appeal on its merits, the circumstances had changed; the Court therefore declined to consider transfer to another RDO.

Instead, it directed the RDO then hearing the appeal to decide it within six months and to follow the cited Division Bench judgment.

The Court did not determine the parties’ competing claims to the properties or the merits of the patta appeal.

The RDO currently hearing respondent 4’s appeal was directed to dispose of it within six months of receiving a copy of the order, in accordance with the Division Bench judgment dated 14 July 2026.

No costs were ordered.