- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26179 WP No. 16293 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO. 16293 OF 2016 (LR) BETWEEN: 1 . SRI. KUMBAIAH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, S/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH 2 . SRI. LAKSHMINARASIMHAIAH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, S/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH 3 . SRI. KRISHNAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS S/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH 4 . SRI. S.N. RAMESH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS S/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH ALL ARE RESIDING AT SONDEKOPPA VILLAGE, DASANAPURA HOBLI, BENGLAURU NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT - 562130. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. RAMESH ANANTHAN, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26179 WP No. 16293 of 2016 AND: 1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001. 2 . THE LAND REFORMS TRIBUNAL BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, REP BY ITS SECRETARY & SPECIAL TASHILDAR K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU-560009. 3 . SRI. NARAYANAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS S/O LATE S.R. CHINNAPAIAH 4 . SRI. ANANTHAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, S/O LATE S.R. CHINNAPAIAH 5 . SRI. NARASIMHAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS S/O LATE S.R. CHINNAPAIAH 6 . SRI. GOPALASWAMY AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS S/O LATE S.R. CHINNAPAIAH - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26179 WP No. 16293 of 2016 RESPONDENTS NO. 3 TO 6 ARE RESIDING AT VYSHYA BANK ROAD, SONDEKOPPA VILLAGE, DASANAPURA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, BENGLAURU URBAN DISTRICT - 562130. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.P. YOGANNA, AGA FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. NARAYAN M. NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR R4 & R5; WRIT ABATES AS AGAINST R3 V/O DATED 08.07.2025) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 30.08.1976 BEARING LRF SDK 41/75-76 AS FOR AS PERTAINING TO SCHEDULE PROPERTY VIDE ANNEXURE-C; AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR ORDERS, COMING FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, E.S. INDIRESH J., MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH CAV ORDER 1. In this writ petition, petitioners have sought for quashing the Order dated 30.08.1976 in LRF.SDK.41/75- 76 (Annexure-C), inter alia, sought for a direction to respondent No.2 to modify the order dated 30.08.1976 in - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26179 WP No. 16293 of 2016 LRF.SDK.41/75-76 by deleting Sy.No.13/2 and inserting the Sy.No.13/1A. 2. Facts leading to the disposal of the petition are that, the father of the petitioners - late Narasimhaiah was cultivating the land bearing Sy.No.13/1A, measuring 2 acres, situate at Sondekoppa Village, Bengaluru North Taluk, under the landlord - deceased S.R. Chinnappaiah (father of respondent Nos.3 to 6 herein). Father of the petitioners - Narasimhaiah had filed Form-7 before the respondent No.2 claiming occupancy right in respect of the aforementioned land along with another land bearing Sy.No.23 measuring 1 acre in the same village as per Annexure-A. The Land Tribunal, after considering the case of the parties on merits, issued Form No.10, reflecting the land bearing Sy.No.13/2 instead of Sy.No.13/1A measuring 2 acres as per Annexure-D. It is further stated that, while issuing the notice by the respondent - authorities it is mentioned as Sy.No.13 and without making proper enquiry, land in Sy.No.13/2 was granted. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26179 WP No. 16293 of 2016 Thereafter, mutation proceedings have been conducted in respect of the land bearing Sy.No.13/2 instead of Sy.No.13/1A as per Annexure-E. RTC extracts have been produced at Annexures - 'F Series and G Series'. It is the grievance of the petitioners that after computerisation of the revenue records, name of the father of the petitioners was shown as Narasimha Murthy instead of Narasimhaiah and there is a discrepancy with regard to the possession of the land mentioned in the record of rights. It is also stated in the writ petition that the entire revenue records show as the land bearing Sy.No.13/1A and therefore, after the demise of the father of the petitioners, the petitioners herein have requested the respondent No.2 to grant occupancy right in respect of Sy.No.13/1A, instead of 13/2. It is stated that the respondent No.2 has no review jurisdiction and therefore, the petitioners have filed this writ petition. 3. Heard Sri. Ramesh Ananthan learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri. K.P. Yogappa, learned Additional - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26179 WP No. 16293 of 2016 Government Advocate for the respondent Nos.1 and 2, and Sri. Narayan M. Naik, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 4 and 5. 4. It is submitted by Sri. Ramesh Ananthan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, that the respondent No.2 has committed an error in conferring occupancy right in respect of the land bearing Sy.No.13/2 instead of the land bearing Sy.No.13/1A which belong to the father of the private respondents herein. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that, the respondent No.2 has issued a notice in respect of Sy.No.13 instead of Sy.No.13/1A and therefore, the respondent No.2 has failed to notice with regard to conferment of occupancy right in respect of the land bearing Sy.No.13/1A and not Sy.No.13/2, as per the Land Tribunal Order produced at Annexure-D, and accordingly, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners by relying upon the order dated 27.09.2022 in W.A.No.915/2021, as such, sought for correction in the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26179 WP No. 16293 of 2016 impugned order, in respect of change in the survey number mentioned at Annexure-D. 5. Per contra, Sri. Narayan M. Naik, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.4 and 5, submitted that the writ petition has to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. It is also contended by the learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 and 5 by referring to the record of rights that the occupancy right made in favour of the father of the petitioners is only in respect of Sy.No.13/2 and not 13/1A, and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. Sri. K.P.Yoganna, learned Additional Government Advocate, appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2, sought to justify the impugned order. 7. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the petitioners herein have sought for rectification in the Order dated 21.04.1980 (Annexure-D), wherein the Land Tribunal has - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26179 WP No. 16293 of 2016 categorically stated that, the land bearing Sy.No.13/2 has been granted in favour of the father of the petitioners. In view of the discrepancy in respect of the survey number mentioned in the impugned order at Annexure-D, it is forthcoming at Annexure-A that, father of the petitioners late Narasimhaiah has filed an application in Form-7 seeking occupancy right in respect of the land bearing Sy.No.13 of Sondekoppa Village. On careful examination of the revenue records produced at Annexure-E, issued by the respondent - Authorities would indicate that occupancy right in respect of the land bearing Sy.No.13/2 has been conferred to the father of the petitioners herein - Narasimhaiah. In that view of the matter, I find force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.4 and 5 that the Land Tribunal has rightly issued Form No.10 (Annexure-D), reflecting the land bearing Sy.No.13/2 of Sondekoppa Village and therefore, the contentions raised by the petitioners cannot be accepted. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26179 WP No. 16293 of 2016 8. I have carefully considered the Judgment of this Court in the case of SMT. CHANDRAVATHI Vs. SRI. N. SUBBAN SHIVA RAO AND OTHERS in W.A.No.915/2021, wherein, this Court has considered the provision under Section 48A(6) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, with regard to rectifying the clerical mistake in the order. This Court in the case of SMT. NIRMALA SHEDTHY AND ANOTHER Vs. THE LAND TRIBUNAL, UDUPI AND OTHERS, W.P.No.21099/2012 dated 11.10.2013, held at para 43 and 44 as follows: "43. It is clear from section 48 (A) (6) and proviso to section 48 (A) (6) that the order of the Tribunal is final. The Tribunal can correct the clerical mistake or correct the extent. It cannot set-aside or review the order passed by it. In 1977 (2) KLJ page 312, it has been held that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the second application and make an order recalling its earlier order. Such an order would be ultravires of the powers of the Land Tribunal. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26179 WP No. 16293 of 2016 44. In Sri ADMAR MATT & ANOTHER vs. Sri RAMA SHETTY (deceased) by LRs., & Others reported in 2006 (3) KCCR page 1659, it has been held, the power under section 48 (A)(6) can be invoked only on an application and after recording reasons in writing in terms of the proviso." 9. It is also relevant to cite the Judgment of this Court in the case of H. B. SHINGAPPA GOWDA Vs. LAND REFORMS TRIBUNAL, SRINGERI AND OTHERS reported in ILR 1977 KAR 1230, wherein it is observed that, the Tribunal has no right to review or recall its order when the same has reached finality. Taking into consideration that the present Writ Petition is filed with inordinate delay of more than 40 years and further the clerical error as contended by the petitioners cannot be considered at this length of time since the Form No.7 filed by father of the petitioners as per Annexure-A is with regard to Sy.No.13 and Form No.10 is issued reflecting the survey No. as 13/2 and also taking into account the RTC extract relevant for the period 1973-74, wherein it is stated that land bearing - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26179 WP No. 16293 of 2016 Sy.No.13/2 has been granted by the Land Tribunal, I am of the view, that no interference is called for in this writ petition. 10. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SAC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 81