Nalinakshi Rai and Others vs State of Karnataka, The Land Tribunal Moodabidri Mangalore and Sri Sanjeeva Kumar Mugera

Ajit J. Gunjal

This petition is by the landlords. The father of respondent No. 3, one Guruva Mugera makes an application in Form No. 7 for grant of occupancy rights. The claim made by the original applicant is in respect of Sy. No. 78/ 182 to an extent of 60 cents. It was his claim that he was cultivating the land as a tenant since 29 years, prior to the filing of the application. The said application was adjudicated and the Land Tribunal, pursuant to the order dated 8.5.1979 granted occupancy rights to an extent of 2 cents in Sy. No. 83/19 and 20 cents in respect of Sy. No. 180, After lapse of close to 3 decades, the original applicant makes an application for correction of the survey number indicating that he was cultivating the land to an extent of 40 cents. The said application was seriously opposed by the petitioner, Notwithstanding such serious opposition pursuant to the impugned order at Annexure ''A'', the Land Tribunal grants occupancy rights to an extent of 20 cents in Sy. No. 83/18. The said order is questioned in this writ petition.

Mr. K. Chandrashekar Achar, learned Counsel for petitioners vehemently submits that the order passed by the Land Tribunal substituting survey number in Form No. 7 is not permissible. He also submits that no material was placed by the respondent before the Tribunal to indicate that he was cultivating to an extent of 20 cents in Sy. No. 83/18.

Mr. G. Ravishankar Shastry, learned Counsel for respondent No. 3 supports the order. He submits that after conducting spot impaction, the Tribunal has found that indeed the third respondent was in occupation to an extent of 20 cents in. Sy. No. 83/18. Hence, the order cannot be faulted, He would press into service a ruling of this Court.

I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by both the Counsel, Form No. 7, which is produced along with the statement of objections by respondent No. 3 would clearly disclose that the claim was in respect of Sy. No. 78/18B to an extent of 60 cents. It is stated in the said application that the said area would consist of a house and a small garden. Apparently, the Tribunal after conducting spot inspection has granted occupancy rights in flavour of the original applicant to an extent of 2 cents in Sy. No. 83/19 and 20 cents in Sy. No. 180. In fact, the Tribunal has not considered or granted the claim of the original applicant in respect of Sy. No. 78/18B to an extent of 60 cents which would necessarily mean that the grant which was made way back in the year 1979 cannot be faulted.

I am of the view that the present application which is made for substitution of the survey number in Form No. 7 itself is impermissible having regard to the Division Bench Ruling of this Court in the case of Pakeera Moolya Vs. K.R. Mari Bhat and others reported in 1994 (3) KLJ 281. Indeed, the Division Bench of this Court has observed that the Tribunal does not get jurisdiction to allow an amendment application after the expiry of period of limitation fixed under the Act. It is also to be noticed that if the application filed by the original applicant is not in respect of amendment of Form No. 7 but in effect, it is so in as much as the claim is all together different in Form No. 7 and grant is also all together different. Hence, I am of the view that the impugned order cannot be sustained.

In so far as the decision which was pressed into service by the learned Counsel for respondent in the case of Ramachandra Devastanam, Sawada Vs. Subbanna Shetty and Others, , I am of the view that the said decision is of no assistance. Indeed, the decision would state that the Land Tribunal has jurisdiction to correct its mistake on its own or on an application made before it Indeed, Section 48-A(6) and Section 112 (B) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act certainty clothe the Tribunal with a jurisdiction to correct any clerical or any arithmetical mistake in the order passed or if there is any error in the measurement, which is not the case here. It is a case where the original applicant wants a substitution of survey number itself, which is impermissible, having regard to the Division Bench Ruling of this Court.

Having said so, I am of the view that the petitioners are entitled to succeed. Petition is allowed. The impugned order at Annexure ''A'' stands quashed. Rule is issued and made absolute.

Mr. Shashidhar S. Karamadi, learned HCGP is permitted to file memo of appearance within four weeks from today.