1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2012

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.KUMAR

AND

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE V.SURI APPA RAO

W.A.NO.469/2010(KLRA) BETWEEN:

B S RAMASWAMY S/O SRINIVASAIAH SINCE DEAD BY LRS. 1.S K VENKATALAKSHMAMMA W/O B S RAMASWAMY

AGED 74 YEARS, R/O BAGALUR BANGALORE NORTH TALUK BANGALORE DISTRICT. 2.B R NAGARAJ

S/O LATE B S RAMASWAMY

MAJOR R/AT BAGALUR

BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, BANGALORE DISTRICT.

3.B R RAJASHEKAR S/O B S RAMASWAMY MAJOR R/AT BAGALUR

BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, BANGALORE DISTRICT.

2

4.B R SRINIVASAMURTHY S/O LATE B S RAMASWAMY MAJOR

R/AT BAGALUR BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, BANGALORE DISTRICT.

5.AMBUJA PRAKASH B R

D/O LATE B S RAMASWAMY Age:39 YEARS W/O BHANUPRAKASH R/ON O.55/18, KRISHNA, 21ST MAIN, 22ND CROSS, VIJAYANAGAR BANGALORE 40

6.SHAILAJA D/O LATE B S RAMASWAMY Age:37 YEARS W/O K SATHYNARAYANA R/O ESWARA TEMPLE STREET CHIKKABALLAPUR

KOLAR DISTRICT. ... APPELLANTS

(BY SRI. S M BABU ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE 1.

2. THE LAND TRIBUNAL DEVANAHALLI,

BY ITS CHAIRMAN

3

3. NARAYANAPPA S/O GULLAPPA MAJOR,SINCE DECEASED BY LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES

3.SMT AKKAYAMMA

W/O NARAYANAPPA AGE MAJOR R/AT YEDIYUR VILLAG MAHADEVAKODIGANAHALLI BANGALORE NORTH TALUK

4.SRI LOKESH

S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA R/AT YEDIYUR VILLAGE, MAHADEVAKODIGANAHALLI,

BANGALORE NORTH TALUK.

5. SRI NARAYANASWAMY

S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA R/AT YEDIYUR VILLAGE, MAHADEVAKODIGANAHALLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK.

6.NAGARAJ S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA Age: 30 YEARS R/O YEDIYUR VILLAGE HAMLET, BAGLUR POST JALAHOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH

TALUK 562 145 ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.K.KRISHNA, AGA FOR R1 AND R2, SRI N G KOTRE ADVOCATE FOR R3-6)

*****

4

WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA

HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE

ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION

NO.30929/2001(KLRA) DATED 18/06/2009.

THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, N.KUMAR J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

The landlord has preferred this appeal

challenging the order passed by the learned Single

Judge who declined to entertain the Writ Petition

where they had challenged the order of the Land

Tribunal granting occupancy rights in favour of the

private respondents.

2. The subject matter of this proceedings is land

bearing sy.no.134 measuring 8 acres situated at

Mahadevakodigehalli, Devanahalli taluk, Bangalore

district. The original third respondent Shri Narayan

filed an application in form no.7 under Section 48-A of

the Karnataka Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to

as the ' Act' for short) on 30.12.1974 for grant of

occupancy rights in sy.no.93 measuring 4 acres 20

5

guntas situated at Chalumakunte village, Devanahalli

taluk. He impleaded one H.Kempaiah and

B.S.Ramaswamy as the landlords. The Tribunal issued

notice to the said landlords. In the said proceedings,

the said Ramaswamy did not appear before the Tribunal

on service of notice. Behind the copy of the notice, he

made an endorsement that land bearing sy.no.93 of

Chalumkunte village does not belong to him.

Thereafter, the Tribunal examined the applicant. They

also verified the RTC registers available in the Taluk

Office. The said RTC showed that the applicant was the

kathedar of the land applied by him. In other words,

he was the landlord of the said land. Therefore, on the

ground that there existed no relationship of landlord

and tenant and the land in question not being a

tenanted land did not vest with the Government,

rejected form no.7. The said order of the Land Tribunal

was not challenged by Narayanappa.

6

3. However on 5.2.1982, he filed a petition

accompanied by an affidavit contending in form no.7

which he had filed earlier, he wanted occupancy rights to

be granted in respect of sy.no.134 of Yediyur village

measuring 8 acres which is hamlet of

Mahadevakodigehalli. Since he was an illiterate, he got

the application written by other persons, who by mistake

entered sy.no.134 under the column showing the lands

owned by the owner or tenant or in other capacity and

sy.no.93 as the land in respect of which form no.7 is filed.

It was due to oversight and it was unintentional. The said

land is a shanbag service inam land of

Mahadevakodigehalli for which B.S.Ramaswamy is a

hakdar. He has been cultivating the said land since five

years and paying wara to the landlord. B.S.Ramaswamy

got the land re-granted in his favour as per the order

dated 30.10.1981 by the Tahsildar, Devanahalli Taluk.

Therefore, he requested to consider his Form no.7

application and confirm the occupancy rights in

his favour under the provisions of the Act. The

7

Tribunal took up the said application, issued notice to

B.S.Ramaswamy. Ramaswamy on being served with the

notice filed his objections contending the case

LRF.3/1974-75 was heard on 16.10.1981 at Budigere

village and the Tribunal had rejected the petitioner’s

claim. In the said case, survey number referred to were

those of Chalumakunte village and he was in no way

connected with the survey numbers. Therefore, the

application was rejected. He submitted that it is indeed

strange how different survey number of

Mahadevakodigehalli, were inserted in the application.

Once the application was rejected, the Tribunal cannot

and shall not reopen the application with different survey

numbers. Though he has applied copies of form no.7

and the order sheet in the case, as it was not supplied to

him, he prayed for time. On 5.4.1982 both the parties

were present. On 3.7.1982, the members of the Land

Tribunal desired to inspect the land and hence,

posted the case for spot inspection to 09.07.1982 by

11 a.m. On 09.07.1982, spot inspection could not be

8

done for want of time and the case was reserved for spot

inspection without fixing the date. On 10.11.1982, the

Tribunal obtained the case file and opined that spot

inspection was not necessary. They opined to get the

land measured by the Surveyor to note the extent of

survey number in which the applicant is in possession.

Accordingly, the case was referred for measurement. On

20.8.1982, the report of the Surveyor with the sketch was

placed before the Tribunal. The members examined the

report of the Surveyor indicating the extent and the

Survey number in which the petitioner is on possession.

On perusal of the sketch, members felt that the petitioner

is in possession of 8.01 acres of land in sy.no.134 of

Yediyur hamlet of Mahadevakodigehalli, which is in the

katha of B.S.Ramaswamy. Therefore, the petitioner is

entitled to occupancy rights over the said land.

The Tribunal took note of the submission of

B.S.Ramaswamy and also the RTC extracts produced.

The RTC extracts produced shows that applicant

Narayanappa is the cultivator of the said land since

9

1973-74 to 1981-82 on wara basis. The report of the

Surveyor indicates that the applicant is in cultivation of

the land in sy.no.134 of Yediyur village.

B.S.Ramaswamy denied the cultivation of the land by

the applicant on the plea that the cultivation is

unlawful. The Tribunal on consideration of the said

material came to the conclusion that the land in

question is tenanted land as on 1.3.1974 and the

applicant is a tenant of the same and he is entitled for

registration of the occupancy rights. Therefore, they

passed an order accordingly on 20.8.1982. Aggrieved

by the said order, the landlord preferred the Writ

Petition.

4. The learned Single Judge on consideration of the

rival contentions and the various judgments cited by

both the parties was of the view that the prayer to

modify the mistake committed by the person who has

filed a form no.7 is always available to the Tribunal, to

rectify the same on its own or by way of an application

10

made by the parties. Under Section 48-A after hearing the

contesting parties, amendment could be made. In the

instant case, notice was issued to the landlord to appear,

contest the matter and thereafter., an order allowing the

amendment was passed. Sub-section (3) of Section 48-A

of the Act confers power on the Tribunal to permit

amendment. Therefore, he was of the view that there is no

illegality or infirmity committed by the Tribunal in passing

the impugned order. The villagers, agriculturists and

tenants, and by and large are illiterate and ignorants.

Though at the instance of some people, they have come

forward to file form no.7, since they are illiterates and

ignorants, they cannot make an application by furnishing

correct survey numbers. As the power is conferred on the

Tribunal for amendment, the Tribunal suo moto can

correct such error. The Tribunal has recorded that since

the applicant is illiterate, he got the tenancy application

written by another person who by mistake entered

survey number 93 in the relevant column as against

11

134, such error is by oversight and unintentional.

Therefore, the learned Single Judge found no good

reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal.

Hence, Writ Petition came to be dismissed. Aggrieved

by the said order, landlord has preferred this appeal.

5. The learned Counsel for the appellants assailing

the impugned order contended that though by virtue of

an amendment, power is conferred on the Tribunal to

amend form no.7, such an application is to be filed

before the disposal of form no.7 before the Tribunal.

Hence, the Tribunal after passing an order rejecting

form no.7 for whatever reason, has no jurisdiction to

entertain the application for amendment of form no.7.

Insofar as the correction of arithmetical or clerical error

is concerned, the Tribunal is vested with such power

but that power does not extend to reverse the order

passed by the Tribunal. In the order which is passed, if

there is a clerical or arithmetical mistake in the order,

the Tribunal could correct it. But in the guise of

12

correcting the typographical or clerical error, it cannot

rewrite the order or reverse the order passed earlier and

therefore, he submitted that the Tribunal had no

jurisdiction to entertain the amendment application

and reverse the order passed in form no.7. The learned

Single Judge has not properly appreciated the facts and

the law on the point and thus committed serious error

in dismissing the petition. Therefore, the appeal has to

be allowed.

6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the

applicant contended the applicant is an illiterate

person, a villager and a farmer. He had to depend on

others for filling up form no.7. While filing form no.7,

a person who filled up form no.7 instead of mentioning

sy.no.134 has mentioned sy.no.93. But in the last

column sy.no.134 is also mentioned. Therefore, it is

not the case of substitution. It is not a case of new

claim. All that is sought is the claim instead of

sy.no.93, it has to be read as sy.no.134 which is clearly

13

mentioned in last column of form no.7. By

amendment, the power is conferred on the Tribunal to

allow the amendment applications by correcting the

survey numbers even after passing of the orders. The

Tribunal has been conferred power to correct clerical

and arithmetical mistakes. All that has been done in

the instant case is as sy.no.93 mentioned therein is an

arithmetical mistake, it is corrected and correct

sy.no.134 is written and therefore, he submits that both

the Tribunal and learned Single Judge were justified in

passing the impugned order. In support of his

contention, he relied on various judgments of this Court

as well as the Supreme Court.

7. In the light of the aforesaid facts and the rival

contentions, the point that arises for consideration is

“Whether the impugned orders passed by both the

Tribunal and as well as the learned Single Judge is in

accordance with law?”.

14

8. The Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 was enacted

with the intention of having a uniform law in the State of

Karnataka. After re-organization of the States relating to

agrarian relations, conferment of ownership on tenants,

ceiling on land holdings and for certain other matters.

The radical change brought about by the said legislation

was all the tenanted lands as on the appointed date as on

1.3.1974 vested with the Government free from all

encumbrances. The tenants who were in possession of

the land therein on the appointed date were conferred a

right to seek for registration of the occupancy of the land

which were in their possession. The Land Reforms

Tribunal were constituted to deal with these claims of

tenancies excluding the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to

go into the said question. Section 48-A of the Act

prescribed the procedure to be followed by the Tribunal

while considering such claims. However, a time limit was

fixed for filing such applications, the last date for filing

such application was 30.6.1979.

15

9. In the instant case, the applicant filed an application

in form no.7 under Section 48-A of the Act on 31.12.1974

within the time prescribed. In form no.7 filed, he sought

for occupancy rights in respect of land bearing sy.no.93

measuring 4 acres 20 guntas situated Chalumkunte

village of Devanahalli village. In the said form no.7 in the

last column, he has mentioned the lands which he owns,

one such land being sy.no.134 measuring 8 acres but the

claim for grant of occupancy rights was in respect of land

bearing sy.no.93 measuring 4 acres 20 guntas situated at

Chalumkunte village. Ramaswamy was shown as the

owner along with one Kempaiah. When the notice of the

Tribunal was served on Ramaswamy, he made an

endorsement on the notice itself stating that he is not the

owner of the land and therefore, he has no interest in the

said land. On the date of hearing after noticing the said

endorsement, the Tribunal verified the claim of the

applicant with reference to records such as RTC.

The said record discloses that the applicant was the

16

kathedar of the land and not a tenant. When he is not

the tenant of the said land, the land did not vest with

the Government. When he is the kathedar of the land,

question of granting land also in his favour do not arise.

Therefore, they passed an order on 24.4.1981 rejecting

form no.7. The said order dated 24.4.1981 was not

challenged by the applicant before this Court and

therefore, it attained finality.

10. On the contrary on 5.2.1982, he filed an

application pointing out the mistake which has

occurred in form no.7 and he requested that the said

application be treated as an application filed for grant of

occupancy rights in respect of sy.no.134 which in fact

is mentioned in the last column. When notice of the

said application was served on the landlord, he filed his

objections contending that once form no.7 is decided by

this Court, it has no jurisdiction to reopen the case to

entertain the application for amendment and to pass

any orders. Therefore, he requested for dismissal of the

17

said application. But the Tribunal has proceeded to

grant occupancy rights. It is that order which is

upheld by the learned Single Judge. In this context,

reliance is placed on sub-sections 3 and 6 of Section 48-

A which reads as under:

“48(3)The form of the application, the form of the notices, manner of publishing or serving the notices and all other matters connected therewith shall be such as may be prescribed. [The Tribunal may for valid and sufficient reasons to permit the tenant

to amend the application.] (6) [The order of the Tribunal under this Section shall be final and the Tribunal shall] send a copy of every order passed by it to the Tahsildar and the parties concerned”.

The first proviso provided that the Tribunal may on the

application of any of the parties for reasons to be

recorded in writing, correct any clerical or arithmetical

mistakes in any order passed by it. There is a proviso

provided further that the Tribunal may on its own or on

application of the parties for reasons to be recorded in

writing correct the extent of the land in any order

passed by it, after causing actual measurement and

18

after giving an opportunity of being heard the concerned

parties. These provisions have been the subject matter

of interpretation by Courts.

11. The learned Single Judge of this Court in the case

of HANUMANTHAPPA KALLAPPA DYAVANNANAVAR

(DECEASED) BY L.Rs .vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

AND OTHES [2000(2) Kar.L.J. 594] at paragraphs 6

and 7 held as under:-

“(6)The question that requires to be

answered is whether the petitioner

would be entitled to point out what is

shown to be an obvious mistake

regarding the land in respect of which

he was claiming occupancy rights by

reason of the interchange of Survey

No.10/1 measuring 10 guntas of land

and Sy.No.44 measuring 7 acres and 10

guntas in the Form No.7 filed by him

and seek occupancy rights therefore.

An amendment of a claim obviously

means the incorporation of a new thing

either in the substitution of what is

already stated or by way of addition of

19

something which is not already stated.

If it is a case of an amendment by an

incorporation of a new thing in the

claim, the decisions referred to above

would squarely apply and the petitioner

would not be entitled any relief. The

petitioner is not seeking to substitute or

add by way of an amendment in Form

No.7, but is only seeking to plead that

on account of ignorance, illiteracy, the

person who filled up the Form No.7 has

interchanged to Survey No.10/6 and

Survey No.44 in columns in which they

ought to have been mentioned, and is

praying that Survey No.44 be read as

the land in respect of which occupancy

rights are sought by him. Such a prayer

cannot be read as an amendment which

is barred by law by reason of its being

pointed out after the last date for filing

an application in Form No.7 i.e.,

30.6.1979. Hence, the Land Tribunal is

empowered to examine the claim of the

petitioner and there is no legal bar for

doing so.

20

(7)The plea raised by the petitioner is

a question of fact that the Land Tribunal

would have to examine and if it is found

as a fact that there has been such an

interchange of Sy.Nos. the Land

Tribunal would be empowered to

examine the case of the petitioner so far

as it relates to Survey No.44 measuring

7 acres and 12 guntas.”

Yet another learned Single Judge in the case of Y.S.

Ramachandra Rao .vs. State of Karnataka and

others (ILR 2005 KAR 2111) at paragraph 11 as held

as under:-

“11. That brings me to the

question whether the Land Tribunal has

jurisdiction to grant occupancy right in

respect of a Survey Number not

mentioned in Form No. 7 by mistake of

an applicant and mentioning a different

survey number. A Division Bench of this

Court in Padmaraja Athikari v. Land

Tribunal, Karkal, held that the

applicants being villagers may be

21

illiterates and ignorants, there is every

possibility that they may mention wrong

survey number in their Form 7. If the

Tribunal after holding an enquiry

ascertains the correct survey number

and grants occupancy right in respect of

that survey number, such an order

cannot be held to be without jurisdiction.

It is held as follows.--

"Though the claimant may mention

wrong numbers in his or her Form 7, the

Tribunal has got jurisdiction to verify and

ascertain the correctness of the numbers

because the possibility of mentioning

wrong numbers cannot be ruled out since

Form No. 7 will be filed by the villagers

who may be illiterates and ignorants.

Therefore, the Tribunal after due enquiry

finds out the correct survey number and

grants occupancy rights in respect of that

survey number even though the claimant

might have mentioned some survey

number wrongly. It cannot be said that

the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to pass

such order".

22

Therefore, even if there is a mistake in

mentioning the survey number in Form 7

by the contesting respondents, it was

permissible for the Land Tribunal to

verify and ascertain the correctness of

the numbers and pass appropriate

orders. Thus, there is no substance in

the argument of the learned Counsel for

the petitioner that the land tribunal has

no jurisdiction to grant occupancy right

in respect of Sy. No. 643.”

The said learned Single Judge in the case of Smt.

Gangamma and another .vs. The Tahsildar and

others [ILR 2005 KAR 4852] at paragraphs 5 and 6

has held as under:-

“It is evident from the impugned

endorsement that the Land Tribunal has

rejected the application of the petitioners

to correct its order on the ground that it

does not have power to do so. By

Karnataka Act No. 31/95, second

proviso to Sub-section (6) of Section 48-A

was inserted which has come into force

23

with effect from 20.10.1995. The said

proviso is as under :

"Provided further that the Tribunal

may on its own or on the application of

any of the parties, for reasons to be

recorded in writing, correct the extent of

land in any order passed by it after

causing actual measurement and after

giving an opportunity of being heard to

the concerned parties".

6. It is clear from the above proviso that

the Land Tribunal may on its own or on

the application of any of the parties,

correct the extent of land in any order

passed by it after causing actual

measurement and after giving an

opportunity of being heard to the

concerned parties. The Land Tribunal

has to assign reasons while passing

such an order. It may also correct the

order passed prior to . the insertion of

the above proviso.”

24

The Apex Court in the case of Honnamma and others

.vs. Nanjundaiah(D) by L.Rs. and others [2008(4) AIR

Kar R 12] at paragraph 8 as held as under:-

“A perusal of the first and the

amended application would reveal that

as survey nos. 64, 81, 75, 75, 13 did not

figure in the original application, the

proposed amendment was rejected and

that order has been maintained even by

the High Court. The claim pertaining to

survey No. 12 in village Mylanahalli too

has also been rejected for the same

reasons. The amendments have

however been allowed with respect to

the other survey numbers and also with

respect to a change in the name of the

village(s) on the understanding that a

mere mis-description of the property

was to be rectified by amendment. To

our mind therefore, a mere mis-

description while identifying the land in

Form no. 7 as originally filed would not

be hit by the embargo with respect to the

last date of the filing of Form no.7 i.e. on

30th June, 1979. The judgment

25

referred to by the High Court is based

on a different set of facts in as much

certain items which had not been

included in the original plaint were

sought to be included by amendment, a

proposal which the court held could not

be justified. The observations in Jai Jai

Ram Manohar Lal vs. National Building

Material Supply, Gurgaon AIR 1969 SC

1267 are meaningful. It has been

observed that a party cannot be refused

amendment in a case of a mis-

description of property as the purpose of

amendment is to ensure that the real

issues are addressed and that in such a

case no question of limitation would

arise and the amended plaint must be

deemed to have been instituted on the

date on which the original plaint had

been filed. We are, therefore, of the

opinion that the finding of the High

Court on the question of limitation is

erroneous.”

Again the Supreme Court in the case of Syed

Beary(dead) by LRs. vs. Dennis Lewis(Dead) by LRs.

26

and others (2007) 15 Supreme Court Cases 629 at

paragraph(1) has held as under:-

“ The tenant applied for amendment of

Form 7 under Section 48-A(3) of the

Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 for

correction of Survey No.129/7. The

Tribunal, having regard to the records,

survey report and the statement of the

landlord, concluded that there was a

mistake in giving survey number

originally in Form No.7 and allowed the

amendment. The appellant authority, on

consideration of the contentions

advanced on behalf of the parties, having

regard to the nature of amendment sought

for and looking to the records made

available, upheld the amendment ordered

by the Tribunal. While doing so, the

appellate authority also took note of the

fact that the landlord himself had

admitted that the tenant was in

possession of the lands in respect of

which amendment was sought in Form

7. The landlord filed a civil revision

before the High Court questioning the

validity and correctness

27

of the order made by appellate

authority, affirming the order made by

the Tribunal allowing the amendment of

Form 7, as sought for by the tenant. The

High Court, by the impugned order,

allowed the revision petition and set

aside the order of the appellate authority,

taking a view that the amendment

application should not be entertained

after 30-6-1979 which was the last date

for filing Form 7. Hence, this appeal by

the tenant.”

12. In the light of the aforesaid judgments, when we

examine the scheme of Section 48(A), it provides for an

enquiry by the Tribunal. It is clear originally the Tribunal

was not conferred any power to amend the application in

Form No.7. Noticing the difficulty expressed in the

implementation of the Act in particular having regard

to the fact that most of the tenants were illiterate and

had to depend on others for filling Form No.7 where it

is possible a mistake would creep in insofar as

survey number or the extent is concerned, by

28

way of amendment to Sub-Section(3) of Section 48A

power was conferred on the Tribunal to permit the tenant

to amend the application for valid and sufficient

reasons. Therefore, after the amendment of the aforesaid

provision, it is possible to amend Form No.7. The said

amendment application has to be necessarily filed before

the application for amendment is disposed of or

adjudicated or decided one way or the other. Once the

application in Form No.7 is disposed of by an order the

question of filing an application in a matter which is not

before the Tribunal would not arise. In fact, in the

corresponding provision in the Civil Procedure Code

namely Order VI Rule 7 the word used is “at any stage of

the proceedings” which is conspicuously missing in Sub-

Section(3) of Section 48A. It is because the order passed

by the Tribunal is final and no appeal is provided.

Though at some point of time an Appellate Authority

was constituted and appeal was provided for it was

abolished. Therefore, the order passed by the Tribunal

attains finality. Therefore, it necessary follows

29

if there is any mistake either in the survey number or

in the extent claimed or in the mentioning of the village

or any other particulars, though the applicant is

permitted to seek for an amendment that amendment

has to be necessarily filed before the application is

disposed of on merits. After the order is passed the

provisions of Sub-Section(6) provides for clerical and

arithmetical mistakes being carried out by the Tribunal

on an application filed by the parties. Therefore, what

can be corrected is an arithmetical mistake in the order

not in the application. Whatever may be the correction

so effected it cannot change the final order passed by

the Tribunal. Therefore, corrections are permitted in

the order of the Tribunal only insofar as it pertains to

survey number or extent or any such similar matters.

Under the guise of exercising power to correct any clerical

or arithmetical mistake in the order the mistake in the

application in Form No.7 cannot be corrected. The

second proviso provides for exercising of suo-moto

power by the Tribunal or on the application by the

30

parties to correct the extent of land after causing actual

measurement and after giving an opportunity of being

heard to the concerned parties. Therefore, under the

scheme the applicant has a right to seek amendment of

errors in Form No.7 before an order is passed on Form

No.7. After the order is passed if they are clerical or

arithmetical mistakes in the order, again he may make

an application for correcting such error in the order.

The suo moto power conferred on the Tribunal to

correct the extent of land is only after survey and after

hearing the parties. In all the judgments relied on either

the application for amendment was filed during the

pendency of the matter before the Tribunal or they were

filed in the High Court when the order passed by the

Tribunal was challenged. In none of those cases, the

application for amendment was filed before the Tribunal

after the Tribunal disposed of Form No.7. Therefore, the

said judgments have no application to the facts of

this case. Therefore, the Tribunal as well as the

learned Single Judge were not justified in permitting

31

such amendment and virtually the Land Reforms

Tribunal has rewritten the order and annulled the order

which was earlier passed, which is patently illegal and

requires to be set aside.

13. Even on merits we have carefully gone through

the material on record as this technical defect should not

defeat the valuable right conferred on the tiller of the

land under the Act. From the material on record it is

clear that it is their specific case in the affidavit filed in

support of the application for amendment that the land

in question is a Inam land-Shanbogi service land. The

land was regranted in favour of the holder of the village

office on 30.10.1981. Admittedly, the applicant is

claiming tenancy rights in the said land from 1973-74.

When this land was attached to the village office the said

land vested with the Government with the passing of the

Karnataka Village Officers Abolition Act, 1961 in the

year 1962. After the vesting of the land, the holder of

the village office could not have granted any tenancy

32

and even if any tenancy is created it is not valid in the

eye of law. Therefore, as on 1.3.1974 the land did not

vest with the Government under the Land Reforms Act

as it had already vested with the passing of the

aforesaid Act in the year 1962. If the tenancy is

created for the first time in the year 1973-74 it is well

settled while deciding the claims under the Land

Reforms Act, it has to be shown that the tenant was in

possession of the land as a tenant atleast three years

prior to 1.3.1974. On his own saying he was not

cultivating the land prior to 1.3.1974. It is obvious that

an attempt is made to claim occupancy rights under

the Land Reforms Act by filing an application in Form

No.7 to which the applicant was not entitled to. In that

view of the matter, even equity is not in his favour.

14. Therefore, we pass the following:-

ORDER

The appeal is allowed. The order

passed by the learned Single Judge as

well as the order passed by the Land

33

Reforms Tribunal granting occupancy

rights in favour of the applicant are

hereby set aside. The application filed for

amendment is dismissed.

The parties to bear their own costs.

SD/- JUDGE

SD/- JUDGE

sh, *alb/-