- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:16947 WP No. 52321 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 52321 OF 2016 (LR) BETWEEN: 1 RANGEGOWDA., SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRs., (a) SRI. RAJANNA., S/O RANGEGOWDA., AGED 64 YEARS, BEERANAKALLU VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572104. (b) SRI. DODDEGOWDA., S/O RANGEGOWDA., AGED 60 YEARS, BEERANAKALLU VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 104. (c) SRI. CHANDRAPPA., S/O RANGEGOWDA., AGED 58 YEARS, BEERANAKALLU VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:16947 WP No. 52321 of 2016 TUMKUR TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT -572 104. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. K.N.NITISH., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001. 2. SMT. ADAVAMMA, W/O LATE CHIKKARANGAIAH, SINCE DEAD BY HER LRs., (a) SRI. D.RAJAKUMAR, AGED 51 YEARS, S/O DODDARANAGAIAH, BEERANAKALLU VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 104. (b) SMT. PUTTARANGAMMA, W/O LATE CHIKKANNA., AGED 71 YEARS, BEERANAKALLU VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 104. (c) SMT. CHIKKAMMA, W/O LATE DODDAIAH, AGED 66 YEARS, BEERANAKALLU VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572104. (d) SRI. RANGASWAMAIAH, S/O LATE CHIKKARANGAIAH, AGED 69 YEARS, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:16947 WP No. 52321 of 2016 BEERANAKALLUR VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT572104. (e) SRI. B.C.HANUMAIAH, S/O LATE CHIKKARANGAIAH, AGED 66 YEARS, BEERANAKALLU VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 104. 3. SRI. REVANNASHETTY, S/O KAREMANE SIDDALINAGAPPA., MAJOR, R/AT HORAPETE, TUMKUR TOWN, TUMKUR-572 101. 4. LAND TRIBUNAL, TUMKUR TALUK, TUMKUR. 5. SMT. SUVARNA, W/O RAJENDRA, D/O LATE SHARADAMMA & SHIVANTHAVEERAPPA, R/AT No.276, 13TH CORSS, 1ST STAGE, BEML LAYOUT, KAMAKSHIPALYA, BASAWESHWARANAGARA, BANGALORE-560 079. …RESPONDENTS (BYSMT. SAVITHRAMMA., AGA FOR R-1 & R-4; SRI. UDAYA HOLLA., SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. SHANMUKHAPPA AND SRI. KISHAN.G.S., ADVOCATE FOR R-2(a TO e); VIDE ORDER DATED 16.04.2018, NOTICE TO R-3 IS HELD SUFFICIENT [MEMO REPORTING DEATH OF R-3 FILED IN COURT BY COUNSEL FOR R-2(a TO e) IS KEPT BELOW] SRI. N.G.VIJAYA KUMAR., ADVOCATE FOR R-5) - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:16947 WP No. 52321 of 2016 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED:05.08.2016 PASSED BY THE LAND TRIBUNAL, TUMKUR TALUK, TUMKUR AT ANNEXURE-S, ETC. THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 20.03.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA CAV ORDER 1. This petition is filed by the legal representatives of Range Gowda, the landlord, challenging the order of the Land Tribunal, by which it has conferred occupancy rights to the legal representatives of Advamma (the tenant) in respect of land bearing Sy. No.39 measuring 8 acres of Beeranakallu village, Kasaba Hobli, Tumkur Taluk. 2. The admitted facts leading to filing of the application in Form No. 7 are as follows: - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:16947 WP No. 52321 of 2016 3. On 24.11.1958, there was a partition effected amongst the members of Karimane Siddalingappa in which the land bearing Sy.No.39 measuring 1 acre was allotted to the share of Shanthaveerappa and an extent of 8 acres was allotted to KS Revanashetty. 4. On 05.04.1974, Sharadamma, the wife of Shanthaveerappa sold the 1 acre of land, which had been allotted in Sy.No.39 to Shanthaveerappa, to Range Gowda. 5. On 18.04.1974, Advamma instituted a suit against Sharadamma, Suvaranamma (the wife and daughter of Shanthaveerappa) and three others, including the purchaser Range Gowda (who was arrayed as the 5th defendant) in O.S.86/1974 seeking for a decree of injunction to restrain Range Gowda from interfering with her possession in respect of Sy.No.38/4 measuring 3 acres and Sy.No.39 measuring 1 acre along with a house. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:16947 WP No. 52321 of 2016 6. In this suit, she pleaded as follows: "2. That the plaintiff, her husband, her mother and other children constitute a hindu undivided joint family. That the suit schedule property is being in possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs family for past 50 years and the plaintiff and her family are cultivating the suit schedule land as tenants of the same. During life time of the plaintiff's husband he was managing the family and after his death, the plaintiff is managing the family and she is cultivating the suit land as tenants. The plaintiff and her other family members are living in an hut constructed about 50 years ago in a portion of land in S.No.39 of the village. The plaintiff has herewith produced pahani copies of the suit survey numbers. Dasappa shown, in the pahani copies is no other than the plaintiff's husband, Kardaramma (Rangamma) is no other than the plaintiff's mother and Dasappa and Chikkanna are no other than the sons of the plaintiff and Doddanarasaiah is no other than his brother. The pahani copies produced along with the plaint clearly shows that the plaintiff and her husband, and mother sons are cultivating the suit land as tenant of the suit lands. Plaintiff is - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:16947 WP No. 52321 of 2016 regularly paying rent to the 1st defendant's husband who died about 3 years ago. " 7. As could be seen from the above, Advamma contended that she was tenant in possession of Sy. No.38/4 (3 acres) and Sy.No.39 (1 acre and a house) i.e., the suit properties. In the schedule, she described the eastern boundary as Land of Revannashetty in Sy.No.39. Thus, Advamma was aware that the land abutting the suit property was belonging to Revanashetty and significantly, she did not state that she was in possession of this land under Revanashetty as his tenant. 8. The defendants, filed a common written statement on 10.06.1974, in which they stated as follows: "5. Defendants 1 and 2 sold 30½ guntas in survey number 38/4 for a consideration of Rs.2000/- to defendant-5 under a registered document dated 4-5-1974 and 0-26 guntas in S.No.38/4 and 1 acre in survey number 39 for a consideration of Rs. 4500/- under a registered document dated 5-4-74 to defendant- - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:16947 WP No. 52321 of 2016 Defendants and were put into possession of the properties thus purchased and they are in possession and enjoyment of the same. " 9. As could be seen from the above, it was clearly stated that land bearing Sy.No.38/4 (3 acres) and Sy.No.39 (1 acre) was sold to Range Gowda and that he was in possession of these lands. 10. On 05.09.1974, within 3 months of the filing of the suit, Advamma and the defendants entered into a compromise and filed a compromise petition in the following terms: "Compromise petition filed by the parties under order 23 rule 3 C.P.C. 1. The plaintiff has no right of tenancy in the suit lands. 2. Defendant Rangegowda has agreed to convey one acre of the land out of the land he has purchased in S.No.39 of Beeranakallu for Rs. 2500/- including the hut there in. The land thus to be sold bears the following boundaries. East:- Partition of S.N0.39 belonging to Revannasetty, West: House of Adavamma and - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:16947 WP No. 52321 of 2016 others. North S.No.38/4 belonging to Shivanna and Siddaiah, South by land of Girigowda. 3. It is agreed that plaintiff should pay Rs. 1000/- in advance on 5-9-74 and have a sale deed executed by Rangegowda on this day. The possession of the land sold is delivered to the plaintiff. Plaintiff pays Rs. 1000/- before the Court to Rangegowda. 4. The balance of consideration of Rs.1500/-is to be paid by the plaintiff on or before 5-12-1974 and should get the document registered. 5. The plaintiff does not press the suit. 6. Each party to bear his or her own cost. " 11. As could be seen from the very first term of the compromise, Advamma categorically stated that she did not have rights of tenancy in Sy.No.38/4 (3 acres) and Sy.No.39 (1 acre) contrary to her assertions in the plaint that she was the tenant of the said lands. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:16947 WP No. 52321 of 2016 12. Range Gowda, who had purchased both Sy.No.38/4 (3 acres) and Sy.No.39 (1 acre) agreed to sell Sy.No.39 measuring 1 acre (including the hut therein) for a sum of Rs.25,000/-. This would therefore indicate that Advamma sought to acquire title over this 1 acre with a hut in it in Sy.No.39 and consequently gave up her claim as a tenant of both Sy.No.38/4 and Sy.No.39. 13. On 05.09.1974, as agreed to in the compromise, Range Gowda executed a Sale Deed in respect of 1 acre in Sy.No.39 and even in this Sale Deed, the eastern boundary was shown as land belonging to Revanashetty and it was not mentioned as the land which was in the possession of Advamma as a tenant of Revanashetty. 14. It must be borne in mind that by the time the suit had been filed and the Sale Deed was executed, the Karnataka Land Reforms Act had been amended by Act No.1 of 1974 with effect from 01.03.1974 - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:16947 WP No. 52321 of 2016 declaring that tenanted lands stood vested in the State and the tenants in possession were conferred with a right to file an application and seek for occupancy rights. 15. On 28.05.1975, Revanashetty, who had been allotted an extent of 8 acres in Sy.No.30, sold the land to Gangamma, the wife of Range Gowda (who had sold 1 acre that he had purchased in Sy.No.39 to Advamma). In this Sale Deed, the western boundary was shown as land belonging to Range Gowda and Advamma. 16. On 12.02.1976, Advamma filed a Form No.7 seeking for occupancy rights in respect of 1 acre in Sy.No.39. She claimed that she was the tenant of Shanthaveerappa and KS Revanashetty in this application. In fact, in this Form No.7, she stated in column meant for stating the area claimed that she was claiming 1-00 (9-00), thereby clearly meaning - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:16947 WP No. 52321 of 2016 that she was claiming 1 acre out of the total extent of 9 acres available in Sy.No.39. 17. Interestingly, in the column which required her to state the lands that she owned, she did not state that she owned Sy.No.39 measuring 1 acre which she had purchased pursuant to the compromise decree in O.S.No.86/1974 and only stated that she owned Sy.No.48 measuring 3 acres 31 guntas. 18. On 16.02.1976, Advamma filed another Form No.7 seeking for occupancy rights, once again, in respect of 1 acre in Sy.No.39 and once again reiterated that she was the tenant of Shanthaveerappa and Revanashetty. In fact, in this Form No.7, she stated in the column meant to state the area that she was claiming 1 acre (MlÄ Ö9=00) 19. Interestingly, even in this second Form No.7, she did not state that she owned 1 acre in Sy.No.39 that she had purchased pursuant to the compromise and - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:16947 WP No. 52321 of 2016 maintained that she only owned Sy.No.48 measuring 3 acres 31 guntas. 20. It is therefore clear that Advamma was categorical in making her claim only in respect of Sy.No.39 measuring 1 acre and she had not staked a claim over the remaining extent of 8 acres in Sy.No.39. In fact, Advamma could not claim tenancy over the 1 acre that she had purchased on 05.09.1974 and she could have only claimed tenancy over the remaining 8 acres, but nevertheless, she only claimed 1 acre out of the total extent of 9 acres in Sy.No.39. 21. The facts thereafter are as follows: 22. On 15.12.1981, the Land Tribunal, on a consideration of the aforementioned applications, proceeded to pass an order conferring occupancy rights over an extent of 0-30 guntas (as against the claimed 1 acre) in Sy.No.39 in favour of Advamma. - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:16947 WP No. 52321 of 2016 23. This order was however set aside by this Court on 04.01.1985 in W.P.No.33867/1981 and the matter was remanded to the Land Tribunal for fresh consideration. 24. On remand, on 30.11.1987, the Land Tribunal, by a majority decision conferred occupancy rights in respect of 8 acres in Sy.No.39 observing that the decision rendered in O.S.No.86/1974 would not apply to the remaining extent of 8 acres in Sy.No.39. 25. An appeal was preferred against the said order to the Appellate Authority and during the pendency of the appeal, it was abolished in 1991, and the petitioner made a petition to this Court and the appeal was transferred and treated as a writ petition in WP.No. 13766/1991. 26. On 04.08.1987, this WP.No.13766/1991 was allowed, and the order of the Land Tribunal was set aside, and - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:16947 WP No. 52321 of 2016 the matter was remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. 27. On remand, the Tribunal conducted a spot inspection and after considering the material on record has passed an order on 05.08.2016, once again conferring occupancy rights in favour of the legal representatives of Advamma (as she was no more). 28. As a consequence, the legal representatives of Range Gowda are before this Court by way of this writ petition assailing the correctness of the order of the Land Tribunal. 29. Sri Nitish, learned Counsel appearing for the legal representatives of Range Gowda put forth these contentions: • Advamma could not have claimed to be a tenant in respect of any extent of land in Sy.No.39 in the light of the fact that she had clearly conceded on 05.09.1974 i.e., after the - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC:16947 WP No. 52321 of 2016 amendment to the Land Reforms Act had come into force, that she had no claim of tenancy rights in Sy.No.39. • Advamma had claimed to be a tenant only in respect of 1 acre in Sy.No.39 and 3 acres in Sy. No.38/4 while filing OS.No.86/1974 and she had also conceded in that suit that she had no tenancy rights over the said land and in the light of this admission, she could not have claimed occupancy rights and the Land Tribunal could not have granted occupancy rights. • Advamma had admitted in the suit and also in the Sale Deed under which she had purchased 1 acre from Range Gowda that to the east of her property was the property of Revanashetty and she had nowhere stated that she was in possession of these lands as a tenant and hence the Land Tribunal could not have conferred occupancy rights in her favour. - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC:16947 WP No. 52321 of 2016 • The RTC for the years upto 1971-72 showed that Chandrashekaraiah was in possession of the entire 9 acres and it was only for the years 1972-73 and 1973-74, the names of Doddaiah, Mallaiah, Doddaiah, Kempaiah and Advamma were entered without any basis and without mentioning the extent and the mode of cultivation was shown as "I" i.e., self and hence the Land Tribunal could not have conferred occupancy rights on Advamma. • Since the name of Advamma was not found in the RTC for the years preceding 1970-71 and it only contained the name of Chandrashekaraiah, the assertion of Advamma that she was in possession as a tenant for more than 35 years could not have been accepted. • The Land Tribunal could not have conferred occupancy rights to an extent of 8 acres when - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC:16947 WP No. 52321 of 2016 Advamma had sought for only 1 acre in her two Form No.7. • Advamma, had not even chosen to make an application for amending her Form No.7 and moreover, she had lost the right to seek for amendment after 30.06.1979 and hence the Land Tribunal could not have entertained her claim and granted her occupancy rights. 34. Sri. Uday Holla, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the legal representatives of Advamma put forth the following contentions in reply: • The Land Tribunal was justified in conferring occupancy rights since the records clearly indicated that Advamma was in possession of 8 acres in Sy.No.39 as a tenant. • The Land Tribunal was legally empowered to confer occupancy rights in respect of 8 acres of Sy.No.39 even if an application had been made - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC:16947 WP No. 52321 of 2016 only for 1 acre as it was the legal obligation of the Land Tribunal to examine and satisfy itself the extent of land that a tenant was in actual possession of and it could even without an application seeking for amendment, in order to do complete justice, confer occupancy rights in respect of that land over which the tenant was in actual possession of. • The sale in favour of Gangamma was non est since the Sale Deed was executed on 28.05.1975 i.e., after the Land Reforms Act had been amended and all the tenanted lands had stood vested with the State free from all encumbrances and hence, neither Gangamma nor her husband Range Gowda could oppose the claim of Advamma. • Revanashetty, the landlord had clearly admitted that he was not aware as to whether the land was tenanted and the land was being managed - 20 - NC: 2025:KHC:16947 WP No. 52321 of 2016 by his brother Chandrashekaraiah and hence it was a case of admitted tenancy, and the Tribunal was therefore justified in conferring occupancy rights in favour of Advamma. • The RTC for the year 1973-74 did reflect the name of Advamma and therefore her possession as a tenant had been clearly established and hence the Land Tribunal was justified in passing the impugned order. • He also relied upon the following judgments to support his arguments that the extent mentioned in the Form No.7 was not a determinative or a conclusive factor for the Land Tribunal to examine the extent for which occupancy rights could be conferred and the Land Tribunal had the jurisdiction to correct any errors in the Form No.7. - 21 - NC: 2025:KHC:16947 WP No. 52321 of 2016 o (2007) 15 SCC 629– Syed Beary v. Dennis Lewis o 2022 SCC Online 387 – Nadakerappa & Ors v. Pillamma & Ors o WA 3231/1997 – Smt Gowramma v. Sheshappagowda & Ors o 2010 SCC Online Kar 5262 – Nandamma v. The Land Tribunal at Shorapur & Ors o WP 10107/20212 – Sri R.S Sharana Basaveshwara & Ors v. Land Tribunal, Bangalore North Taluk & Ors o ILR 1998 Kar 1932 – Krishnappa Poojary v. N.V Rangappaiah o ILR 2005 Kar 4852 – Gangamma & Anr v. Tahsildar & Ors o 1997 (5) KLJ 101 – U.T Venkata Rao v. Pakeera Patali & Ors - 22 - NC: 2025:KHC:16947 WP No. 52321 of 2016 35. In the light of the above submissions, the following question would arise for consideration in this writ petition: Whether the Land Tribunal could have concluded that Advamma was the tenant in respect of Sy.No.39 measuring 8 acres in the light of the two Form No.7’s that she had filed wherein she had claimed only 1 acre and also in the light of the fact that she had admitted in OS.No.86/1974 that she had no tenancy rights both in respect of Sy.No.39 (1 acre) and Sy.No.38/4 (3 acres) and had purchased 1 acre in Sy.No.39. 36. The answer to the above would be in the negative and against Advamma for the following reasons. 37. Advamma had admittedly filed OS.No.86/1974 on 18.04.1974 (after the amendment to the Land Reforms Act had come into force with effect from 01.03.1974) against the widow, daughter of Shanthaveerappa and also the purchaser of 1 acre in - 23 - NC: 2025:KHC:16947 WP No. 52321 of 2016 Sy.No.39 i.e., Range Gowda, seeking for a decree of injunction contending that she was the tenant of Shanthaveerappa in respect of 1 acre (along with a hut) in Sy.No.39 and 3 acres in Sy.No.38/4. Thus, as of 01.03.1974, she had claimed that she was the tenant of only 1 acre in Sy.No.39. Nowhere in the plaint, she stated, either directly or indirectly, that she was in possession of the remaining 8 acres in Sy.No.39 under Revanashetty. She, in fact, admitted that to the east of the 1 acre of land in Sy.No.39, that she claimed to be the tenant, was the remaining land of Revanashetty. 38. In this suit, Sharadamma, the widow of Shanthaveerappa categorically stated that the land bearing Sy.Nos.39 and 38/4 had fallen to the share of Shanthaveerappa under the Partition Deed dated 14.11.1958 and as a consequence, Advamma was obviously aware that the remaining 8 acres was allotted to Revanashetty and yet she chose to name - 24 - NC: 2025:KHC:16947 WP No. 52321 of 2016 Shanthaveerappa and Revanashetty to be her landlords. 39. It is to be kept in mind that the suit was compromised in September, 1974 and the Form No.7 was filed in February 1976, thereby meaning that though Advamma was aware of the partition of the year 1958 under which Shanthaveerappa had been allotted 1 acre in Sy.No.39 and she had in fact purchased this extent under a Sale Deed from Range Gowda, the purchaser from Shanthaveerappa, she nevertheless still contended that Shanthaveerappa was the owner of the said land. 40. It is also to be borne in mind that though the remaining 8 acres in Sy.No.39 was purchased by Sharadamma wife of Range Gowda, she arrayed only Range Gowda who had purchased 1 acre in Sy.No.39 and in fact had sold it to her, as her landlord. - 25 - NC: 2025:KHC:16947 WP No. 52321 of 2016 41. This particular fact would clearly indicate that Advamma had not narrated the facts that were within her knowledge when she made two applications seeking for conferment of occupancy rights. 42. As also extracted above, Advamma claimed to be the tenant of only 1 acre in Sy.No.39 when he filed OS.No.86/1974 but significantly, when entering into a compromise whereby it was agreed that Range Gowda would sell the 1 acre that he had purchased in Sy.No.39 in favour of Advamma, she made a categorical statement that she did not have tenancy rights in both Sy.No.38/4 and Sy.No.39. If Advamma had made a clear and categorical statement that she did not have tenancy rights in respect of Sy.No.39 measuring 1 acre and had also not stated that she was the tenant of the other remaining portion measuring 8 acres in Sy.No.39, it is clear that she could not have made the application seeking for - 26 - NC: 2025:KHC:16947 WP No. 52321 of 2016 conferment of occupancy rights on the premise that she was a tenant. 43. It appears from this transaction arrived at in OS.No. 86/2014 that Advamma was only interested in acquiring 1 acre in Sy.No.39 in which a hut was constructed and when this extent was agreed to be sold to her, she willingly stated that she had no tenancy rights. In my view, this statement of Advamma in the compromise deed that she had no tenancy rights, would completely disentitle her from filing a Form No.7, more so, when it is kept in mind that the compromise was entered into after the Land Reforms Act had been amended with effect from 01.03.1974. 44. An argument was however sought to be advanced that the compromise entered into in OS.No.86/1974 would have no bearing since that compromise pertained only to 1 acre in Sy.No.39 and the Form No.7 was filed in respect of the remaining portion of - 27 - NC: 2025:KHC:16947 WP No. 52321 of 2016 land in Sy.No.39. In my view, this argument cannot be accepted. 45. The suit had been filed against the widow of Shanthaveerappa and Range Gowda after an extent of 1 acre in Sy.No.39 had been sold to Range Gowda and in this suit, it was clearly stated that to the east of the 1 acre of land in possession of Advamma in Sy.No.39, was the land of Revanashetty. If Advamma was in possession of the entire portion of Sy.No.39, surely, she would have stated so in her pleadings in OS.No.86/1974. The fact that she did not say so, coupled with the fact, that she made a claim only for 1 acre in Sy.No.39 in her Forms No.7 clearly leads to the inescapable conclusion that she never ever claimed any portion other than the extent of 1 acre in Sy.No.39. 46. The argument that the Tribunal had recorded a finding of fact that the RTC for the year 1973-74 reflected the name of Advamma and therefore the - 28 - NC: 2025:KHC:16947 WP No. 52321 of 2016 reasons given by the Land Tribunal for conferring occupancy rights cannot be interfered with, cannot also be accepted. It is to be stated here that, firstly, Advamma in OS.No.86/1974 claimed that she was in possession of only 1 acre in Sy.No.39 and therefore any entry in the RTC would really be of any significance to determine as to who was in possession. 47. Secondly, right upto 1971-72, the name of Revanashetty has been found in both Column No.9 and in Column No.12 (2) and the mode of cultivation has been mentioned as “I" (self). This would indicate that the possession of Revanashetty was established. The name of Advamma is found only among 4 other names and is found only for the year 1973-74 without specifying the extent to which she was in possession. This particular fact when seen in the context of the pleading put forth by Advamma in OS.No.86/1974 that she was a tenant of only 1 acre - 29 - NC: 2025:KHC:16947 WP No. 52321 of 2016 in Sy.No.39 clearly leads to an inference that she was in possession of only 1 acre in which she had also constructed a hut. 48. In the light of the fact that Advamma purchased this 1 acre from Range Gowda as a part of a term of the compromise and she conceded that she had no tenancy rights in the suit lands clearly establish that her claim was only relating to 1 acre in Sy.No.39 and not in respect of any portion of the 8 acres in Sy.No.39. 49. The argument of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the legal representatives of Advamma that Section 48-A(3) of the Land Reforms Act permitted the amendment of a Form No.7 on valid and good grounds and the decisions relied upon supported his argument cannot also be accepted. 50. Firstly, Advamma never made any application seeking to amend her Form No.7. Even in the - 30 - NC: 2025:KHC:16947 WP No. 52321 of 2016 depositions, it has nowhere been stated by any of the witnesses that an error had crept in the Form No.7 regarding the extent and the same was required to be corrected. In short, no attempt was made to seek amendment of the Form No.7. In such a scenario, the question of placing reliance on Section 48-A (3) of the Land Reforms Act to contend that the Land Tribunal was right in granting 8 acres when only 1 acre was sought would not arise. 51. It must be kept in mind that the provision to amend Section 48-A(3) of the Land Reforms Act permitting the Land Tribunal to amend the Form No.7 was inserted only by Act No.1 of 1979 (with effect from 01.03.1974), which amendment basically extended the time to file a Form No.7. It is obvious that this amendment was basically intended to correct errors in the applications that had already been filed since 1974 and was not intended to enable the Land Tribunal to entertain an application to amend the - 31 - NC: 2025:KHC:16947 WP No. 52321 of 2016 Form No.7 by permitting an applicant to enlarge his claim, several years after the last date fixed for filing the Form No.7 had expired. It is to be kept in mind that Section 48-A (8) of the Land Reforms Act declares that if a Form No.7 is not filed within the time prescribed under Section 48-A (1) of the Land Reforms Act, the person entitled to be registered as an occupant loses his right completely. 52. It is therefore clear that the power available under Section 48-A (3) of the Land Reforms Act cannot enable the Land Tribunal to permit the applicant to enlarge his claim by asking for a larger extent of land in the same survey number or seek for additional lands in other survey numbers. The power to permit an amendment to correct errors in an application cannot be used to permit fresh claims to be made and that too after the last date fixed for filing the application had expired. - 32 - NC: 2025:KHC:16947 WP No. 52321 of 2016 53. As far as the judgments relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the legal representatives of Advamma, the same cannot be accepted for the following reasons: o (2007) 15 SCC 626 - Syed Beary v. Dennis Lewis: In this case, the Supreme Court was dealing with a case wherein in the Form No.7, a wrong survey number was mentioned and in that context, it was held that a correction was permissible. Obviously, it was not a case whereby the claim was sought to be enlarged and hence the said decision would have no application to the facts of this case. o 2022 SCC Online 387: Nadakerappa & Ors v. Pillamma & Ors: In this case, the Supreme Court was dealing with a case in which the owner of the land was not mentioned in the Form No.7 and in that context it was held that it was duty of the Tahsildar to verify the records and incorporate the name of the landlord given the fact that the applicants were - 33 - NC: 2025:KHC:16947 WP No. 52321 of 2016 usually illiterate and ignorant. Obviously, this case can also have no application since it did not pertain to an enlargement of a claim by an applicant, as in the present case. o W.A.No.3231/1997 : Smt Gowramma v. Sheshappagowda & Ors: In this case, the Division Bench was dealing with a case where the names of the land and its extent was mentioned as per the local usage of terms and held in that context the Land Tribunal was justified in conferring occupancy rights by identifying the survey numbers even though the same were not mentioned in the Form No.7. Obviously, this factual aspect is not prevalent in this case and hence the decision can have no application. o 2010 SCC Online Kar 5262 : Nandamma v. The Land Tribunal at Shorapur & Ors: In this case, the Division Bench was dealing with a case where the appellant had purchased the land in 1980, 5 years after the tenant had filed his application and being a - 34 - NC: 2025:KHC:16947 WP No. 52321 of 2016 subsequent purchaser, he could not challenge the order of the Land Tribunal. In this case, Sharadamma purchased the property on 28.05.1975, much before the Form No.7’s were filed on 12.02.1976 and 19.02.1976. It is therefore clear that the said decisions would have no application. o WP.No.10107/20212: Sri R.S Sharana Basaveshwara & Ors v. Land Tribunal, Bangalore North Taluk & Ors: In this case, this Court was dealing with a case whereby the applicant/tenant had been dispossessed and had instituted a suit for possession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act and the Court found that the landlord had inducted the tenant and had agreed to share the crops and in that context held that a sale of this tenanted land after 01.03.1974 was non est. In this case, it is seen that the land measuring 8 acres was not tenanted and Advamma was claiming only 1 acre which she had already purchased and thus the question of this - 35 - NC: 2025:KHC:16947 WP No. 52321 of 2016 8 acre standing vested with the State resulting in the sale in favour of Sharadamma being non est would not arise at all. o ILR 1998 Kar 1932, Krishnappa Poojary v. N.V Rangappaiah: In this case, this Court was dealing with a case where no survey number was mentioned in the Form No.7 and when the lands could be identified by their description in the Form No.7, it was the duty of the Land Tribunal to determine the survey numbers and confer occupancy rights. In this case, Advamma had not only mentioned the survey number i.e., Sy.No.39 and also its extent as 1 acre out of a total of 9 acres, in both the Form No.7 that she had filed and therefore there was no ambiguity in the Form No.7 for the Land Tribunal to decipher or determine. This decision is therefore inapplicable. o ILR 2005 Kar 4852, Gangamma & Anr v. Tahsildar & Ors: In this case, this Court was dealing - 36 - NC: 2025:KHC:16947 WP No. 52321 of 2016 with the power of the Land Tribunal to correct the errors found in the order passed by it, which had come to light after the land was measured and in that context held that the Land Tribunal had the power to amend its order under Section 48-A (6) of the Land Reforms Act. This decision would therefore have no application to the facts of this case. o 1997 (5) KLJ 101, U.T Venkata Rao v. Pakeera Patali & Ors: In this case, this Court was dealing with a case in which the landlord had admitted the tenant was in possession of 8 cents of land in which he got his house, cow shed and hay shed and in the light of this admission, the grant of this extent even though no claim was made could not be found fault with it. In this case, it is not admitted by the landlord that Advamma was in possession of 8 acres and on the contrary that Sharadamma’s husband, Range Gowdahad settled the claim of Advamma by - 37 - NC: 2025:KHC:16947 WP No. 52321 of 2016 conveying 1 acre of land that she claimed as a tenant and hence this decision would have no application. 54. In conclusion, it is to be stated here that Advamma was in possession of only 1 acre in Sy.No.39 as stated by her in OS.No.86/1974 and she was not in possession of any portion of the remaining extent of 8 acres in Sy.No.39 and the moment this extent of 1 acre in Sy.No.39 was conveyed to her by Range Gowda under the Sale Deed dated 05.09.1974, she lost all rights in Sy.No.39 and she had therefore no right to make an application seeking for conferment of occupancy rights of the remaining portion of 8 acres in Sy.No.39 and that too almost two years after securing the conveyance of 1 acre. 55. In my view, Advamma being the owner of 1 acre in Sy.No.39 and by suppressing this important fact when she filed her Form No.7, was disentitled to file a Form No.7 in respect of any portion of Sy.No.39. If it is kept in mind that Advamma had purchased 1 - 38 - NC: 2025:KHC:16947 WP No. 52321 of 2016 acre in Sy.No.39 from Range Gowda and Range Gowda’s wife Sharadamma had purchased the remaining 8 acres in Sy.No.39 from Revanashetty, it is clear that this extent of 8 acres was not tenanted at any point of time and hence did not vest in the State at all. 56. The reliance sought to be placed on the deposition of Revanashetty to contend that he had stated that he was unaware as to whether the land was tenanted or not and the land was being managed by Chandrashekaraiah does not establish that Advamma was in possession of the lands as a tenant. If a witness says, his brother was managing the properties that he had sold to Sharadamma and hence he does not know whether the land was tenanted cannot lead to the inference that Advamma was a tenant in possession of 8 acres of land. 57. In the ultimate analysis, the Land Tribunal could not have come to the conclusion that Advamma was the - 39 - NC: 2025:KHC:16947 WP No. 52321 of 2016 tenant in possession of 8 acres of land (though she claimed only 1 acre) in Sy.No.39 and hence the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the same is accordingly set aside. Consequently, the Form No.7 filed by Advamma shall stand rejected. 58. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. Sd/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE PKS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 148