- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:3751 WP No. 14827 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 14827 OF 2023 (LR) BETWEEN: R. BHASKARA S/O B.R KRISHNAMURTHAIAH, AGED 84 YEARS, BY HIS GPA HOLDER GURUPRASAD H.B S/O R. BHASKARA AGED 54 YEARS, BOTH ARE R/AT MAJARE HUGALAVALLI, BILUVE VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, TEERTHAHALLI TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT …PETITIONER (BY SRI. DEPPAK WAGLE, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. KESHAVA BHAT A, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF LAND REVENUE, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE 560001. 2. THE LAND TRIBUNAL TEERTHAHALLI REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TALUK OFFICE TEERTHAHALLI SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT, SHIVAMOGGA 577432. Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:3751 WP No. 14827 of 2023 3. H.T. KRISHNAIAH S/O THIMMAIAH MAJOR R/AT MAJARE HUGALAVALLI, BILUVE VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, TEERTHAHALLI TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577432. 4. 4(A) VENKAMMA W/O VENKATARAMANAIAH MAJOR (SINCE DECEASED) MR. B.A.RAGHAVENDRA S/O LATE ACHUTHAYYA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/AT BHARATHIPURA VILLAGE AND POST, THIRTHAHALLI TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 342 5. RAMAIAH GOWDA S/O HIRIYANNA GOWDA MAJOR 6. H.H. MANJAPPA S/O HIRIYANNA GOWDA MAJOR 7. H.H. NAGESHA S/O HIRIYANNA GOWDA, MAJOR 8. H.E. RAMADASA S/O BHRAMAIAH GOWD MAJOR 9. H.T. CHANDRASHEKHARA S/O H.K. THIMMAIAH MAJOR R5 TO R9 R/AT MAJARE HUGALAVALLI, BILUVE VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:3751 WP No. 14827 of 2023 TEERTHAHALLI TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577432. 10. 11. THE ASST. DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS TALUK OFFICE, TEERTHAHALLI - 577 342 THE REVENUE INSPECTOR KASABA HOBLI, TALUK OFFICE, TEERTHAHALLI - 577 342 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. WAHEEDA. AGA FOR R1, 2, 10 & 11; SRI. M.MADHAVACHAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3, 5, 6, 7 & 9 NOTICE SERVED ON R8 AND R4(A) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 23.3.2023 IN PROCEEDING NO.LRT (7) KSB BLA 55/74-75, PASSED BY THE LAND TRIBUNAL TEERTHAHALLI (ANNEXURE-A), ETC THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER This petition is filed assailing the order of respondent No.2 - Land Tribunal, Teerthahalli as per Annexure-A. In the captioned petition, the petitioner, who is the adjoining owner in Survey No.73 measuring 3 acre 14 guntas, is aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the Land Tribunal. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:3751 WP No. 14827 of 2023 2. The petitioner in the captioned petition is primarily questioning the Land Tribunal Order in entertaining an application filed by the private respondents claiming rectification of extent as indicated in the Land Tribunal order while conferring occupancy rights to Ramaiah Gowda and H.K. Thimmaiah. Respondent No.2- Land Tribunal vide order dated 26.11.1977 conferred occupancy right in respect of two applicants namely Ramaiah Gowda and H.K.Thimmaiah. Ramaiah Gowda is conferred occupancy rights to an extent of 3 acres 22 guntas and H.K. Thimmaiah is conferred with occupancy rights in Survey No.73 to an extent of 5 acre 15 guntas. In 2022, the Legal heirs of these two applicants appeared to have filed an application seeking rectification of extents indicated in 1977 order. 3. On closer examination of the impugned order passed by the Land Tribunal evidenced at Annexure-A, this Court is of the view that the order under challenge is passed without jurisdiction. A Land Tribunal under Section - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:3751 WP No. 14827 of 2023 48A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 ( for short, the 'Act') is conferred limited right to rectify any clerical or arithmetical mistake. 4. Under proviso 2 Sub clause (6) of Section 48A of the Act, it provides limited remedy to the tenants seeking rectification of the extents subject to proof that these are clerical mistakes. 5. It is rather concerning that after a lapse of nearly four decades, the private respondents have now chosen to assert and claim a larger extent of land than what was originally granted to them by the Land Tribunal while adjudicating their application back in 1977. The long delay in making such a claim raises serious doubts regarding its legitimacy and the justification for revisiting an issue that was settled decades ago. The principle of finality in judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings must be upheld, and entertaining such belated claims not only disrupts settled rights but also sets an unhealthy precedent. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:3751 WP No. 14827 of 2023 6. An even more disturbing aspect of the case is that the petitioner, who is the adjoining owner of the land bearing Survey No. 73, is now being adversely affected by the order passed by respondent No. 2 – Land Tribunal. It is pertinent to highlight that the lands in question were never originally the subject matter of the Land Tribunal’s proceedings. Despite this, the Tribunal’s decision has now resulted in a reduction of extents in a manner that directly prejudices the petitioner's interest. The rejection of extents and the reallocation of land, as done by the Land Tribunal, appear to be without jurisdiction and wholly unsustainable in law. 7. Further, it is evident that the Land Tribunal, without having the authority to do so, issued a notice to the petitioner and unilaterally impleaded him as a party to the proceedings at the instance of the private respondents. It is noteworthy that the petitioner was never a party to the original proceedings in 1977. However, upon an application filed by the private - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:3751 WP No. 14827 of 2023 respondents, the Tribunal not only included the petitioner in the proceedings but also went beyond its jurisdiction by subdividing the land among the legal heirs of the original applicants. This action effectively altered the specific shares of the legal heirs without any lawful basis, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. Such an approach by the Tribunal is wholly impermissible, as it amounts to a substantive modification of the original grant rather than a mere rectification of an error. Consequently, the impugned order suffers from a jurisdictional error and is unsustainable in the eye of law. 8. As stated earlier, the jurisdiction of the Land Tribunal is strictly confined to rectifying clerical or arithmetical mistakes as per the proviso to Sub-section (6) of Section 48A of the Act. Once an order has been passed by the Tribunal, it has no inherent power to recall or review its own decision. A careful analysis of the relevant provision makes it clear that the Tribunal’s authority to correct extents of land is restricted only to cases where - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:3751 WP No. 14827 of 2023 the error arises due to its own inadvertent mistake. However, under the guise of rectification, the Tribunal cannot conduct a fresh or full-fledged enquiry by bringing in a third party who was never part of the original proceedings. The petitioner’s ownership rights over an extent of 3 acres and 14 guntas, as reflected in the Record of Rights (RTC), cannot be subjected to any review proceedings initiated by the Tribunal in excess of its jurisdiction. Any such interference by the Tribunal would be patently illegal and without any foundation in law. 9. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the view that the order challenge under this petition is not sustainable and liable to be set-aside. Accordingly, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER I. The writ petition is allowed. II. The impugned order dated 23.03.2023 passed by respondent No.2 - Land - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:3751 WP No. 14827 of 2023 Tribunal, Teerthahalli as per Annexure-A, is hereby quashed. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE NMS