Lawrence D''Souza vs Smt. Rathnavathi and Others

Chidananda Ullal, J

The petitioner herein had originally filed an Appeal before the Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Udupi, Dakshina Kannada District in LRA.TT/1412/88. When the said Appellate Authority was abolished, the Appeal was transferred to this Court, upon a C.P. filed in No. 598/ 90 before this Court. Hence, what is before this Court is the said Appeal in the form of a Writ Petition.

I heard the Learned Counsel Sri K. Giridhar for Sri U.L. Narayana Rao for the petitioner and the Learned Government Pleader Sri M.N. Ramanjaneyagouda, for the Respondents No. 2 and 3. The * Respondent No. 1 having been served with notice remained absent before this Court. I have also perused the records pertaining to the case.

The brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner''s father one Kuddu alias Pedru D''Souza filed Form No. 7 before the Respondent No.3 - Land Tribunal, Udupi, claiming occupancy right in respect of two items of land owned by one P.N. Madhava Rao, six items of land owned by Manjunath Naik and one item each of land owned by Hariyappa Nayak and Kalyaniamma, all of Udupi. In the reverse side of the said Form No. 7, nine items of land were shown as belonging to him. The said Form No. 7 was filed by the father of the petitioner on 16.10.74.

On 24.10.79, the original declarant, the above said Kuddu alias Pedru D''souza had field an amendment application to amend Form No. 7 filed by him with a prayer that he be permitted to amend that Form No. 7 to bring the 9th item of the land shown in the reverse side of Form No. 7 as one owned by him, to the first page of the Form No. 7, to make it a claim as against the Respondent No. 1 herein.

The Respondent No. 3 - Land Tribunal, issued the father of the petitioner an endorsement dated 21.11.87 stating therein that the prayer to amend the Form No. 7 as above, did not come within the scope of the amendment of the Form No. 7. It is the said endorsement dated 21 11.87 of the Respondent No. 3 - Land Tribunal, the petitioner has challenged herein in the instant Writ Petition.

The Learned Counsel for the petitioner had argued that the amendment as prayed for by him was only to make good the mis description of the extent of land of 4 acres 20 cents in Survey No. 252/ 3A as the one owned by him (shown in the rear side of Form No. 7). when the same was a tenanted land very well borne on the Revenue records and owned by the Respondent No. 1 herein. He further submitted that the said amendment was sought for as above, well in time and as such, the grievance of the petitioner is that there was no justification for the Land Tribunal to issue the above endorsement declining to entertain the amendment. Therefore, he prayed that the same be quashed and the Land Tribunal be directed to permit the petitioner to amend his Form No. 7.

The Learned Government Pleader argued that the amendment as sought for now by resorting to the I.A. by the original declarant is impermissible in law, for the reason that the same was to put forth a new claim as against a totally different person. He further pointed out that the Respondent No. 1 herein was not at all a party to the Form No. 1 filed by the original declarant. Hence, he prayed that the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.

In the light of the above argument advanced by both sides, I have also perused the records. It is pertinent to mention at the outset that the I.A. for amendment was filed on 24.10.79 when the last date for filing the Form No. 7 was 30.6.79. Hence, the submission of the Learned Counsel for the petitioner that the amendment was filed well in time is not factually correct.

Let apart, it is clear that by the amendment of the Form No. 7 as sought for by the original declarant by resorting to the application before the Land Tribunal, the original declarant had put forth for the first time, a claim as against the Respondent No. 1 herein, when she was not at all a party to the original Form No. 7. As a matter of fact, by resorting to the amendment, the petitioner had sought to bring the 9th item of the land shown as the one owned by the original declarant as a claim as against the Respondent No. 1 herein. This according to me is not only a new claim, but also as against a person whose name did not occur in the Form No. 7 filed at the first instance by the original declarant. In my considered view, if such an amendment is permitted, the same tantamounts to expanding the original claim made by the original declarant.

That being the position, I am not inclined to allow the Writ Petition.

In the result, I hold that the impugned endorsement dated 21.11.87 issued by the Respondent No. 3 - Land Tribunal is just and proper and not called for to be interfered with.

The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. Rule discharged.

In view of the above order, the Office is directed to return the original records of the Tribunal now on the case file of this Court, to the Land Tribunal, Udupi, Dakshina Kannada District, at the earliest, of course, after the expiry of the Appeal period.