- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27859 WP No. 912 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO. 912 OF 2022 (LR) BETWEEN: MR.SUNDAR SHETTY SINCE DEAD MR.SEETHARAM SHETTY S/O LATE SUNDAR SHETTY AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT UROLMAR HOUSE TIRUVAILU VILLAGE VAMANJOOR POST MANGALORE-575 028 …PETITIONER (BY SMT. MEGHANA BALLAL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. KAMALA SHEDTHI BONDANTHILLA TIRUVAILU GRAMA MANGALORE TALUK-575 028 SINCE DEAD REPRESENTED BY LR'S 1(A) VAJARAKSHI B SHEDTHI D/O LATE THOCHAPPA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS R/AT SHRI DEVEPRASAD, AGRAHARA ROAD, PARKALA, UDUPI. Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27859 WP No. 912 of 2022 1(B) IS ALREADY ARRAYED AS RESPONDENT NO.2 IN THE PRESENT PETITION. 1(C) RAMACHANDRA SHETTY S/O LATE THOCHAPPA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, R/AT EDEN MANOR, 201, 2ND FLOOR, 443, 8TH CROSS ROAD, DOLLARS COLONY, RMV 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU- 560 094. 1(D) RAVINDRANATH SHETTY S/O LATE THOCHAPPA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS R/AT 601, GRASO VILLA CONVENT ROAD BHRAMAGIRI CIRCLE, UDUPI. 2. SUMATHI SHEDTHI W/O SURESH KUMAR SHETTY AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS DIOAGO C501 RIZVI CIMPLEX, OFF CARTER ROAD BANDRA WEST, MUMBAI-400050 3. THE LAND TRIBUNAL MANGALORE TALUK DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT MANGALORE-575 001 REPRESENTED BY CHAIRMAN 4. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, DR.AMBEDKAR ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ROOPESH AND MK SANDEEP, ADVOCATES FOR R2 AND ALSO FOR LRS OF DECEASED R1 AND SRI. KP YOGANNA, AGA FOR R3 AND R4) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27859 WP No. 912 of 2022 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 22.10.2021 PASSED BY THE MANGALORE TALUKA LAND TRIBUNAL, DAKSHINA KANNADA, IN THE CASE VIDE ANNEXURE-M ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING - B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER In this writ petition, the petitioner is assailing the order dated 22.10.2021 (Annexure-M) in LRT:1038/78-79 and 1109/78-79 passed by the Mangalore Taluka Land Tribunal, Dakshina Kannada. 2. The relevant facts for the purpose of adjudication are that, father of the petitioner - late Mr. Sundar Shetty, claimed to be a tenant in respect of land comprising 4.62 acres situated in Triuvailu Village, Mangalore Taluk. 3. It is stated that, father of the petitioner had a Chalageni holding in respect of the subject land, as he was cultivating the same. He had filed a declaration under Form No.7 seeking occupancy rights over the said land (as per Annexure-A to the writ petition). The subject matter of the land - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27859 WP No. 912 of 2022 in the present writ petition pertains to the land bearing Survey No.35/2. The father of the petitioner has claimed an extent of 0.80 cents of land in the said Survey Number. 4. The application made by the father of the petitioner in Form No.7 was accepted by the Land Tribunal and based on the evidence on record, by order dated 01.10.1981, occupancy rights were conferred in respect of 0.25 cents in Survey No.35/2 (as per Annexure-F to the writ petition). 5. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application under Form No.7A seeking occupancy rights in respect of the remaining extent of land (as per Annexure-H to the writ petition). The said application was rejected by the Land Tribunal and thereafter, an application was made seeking rectification of the extent of land as claimed by the father of the petitioner herein, which also came to be rejected by the impugned order (as per Annexure-M in the writ petition). Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 6. Heard Smt. Meghana Ballal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Sri Roopesh and Sri M.K. Sandeep, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27859 WP No. 912 of 2022 learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2; and Sri. K.P. Yoganna, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.3 and 4. 7. Smt. Meghana Ballal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that, father of the petitioner had claimed 0.80 cents of land bearing Survey No.35/2 and the Land Tribunal, by its order dated 01.10.1981, granted occupancy rights in respect of only 0.25 cents. The remaining extent of land in question as claimed by the petitioner has not been considered by the Land Tribunal. 8. It is also submitted by the learned counsel, by referring to the impugned order at Annexure-M, that there was no impediment for the Land Tribunal to make necessary correction insofar as granting occupancy rights to the extent of 0.80 cents in land bearing Survey No.35/2. Accordingly, she sought the interference of this Court. 9. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is in cultivation of the entire extent of 0.80 cents of the land in question and therefore, the impugned order passed by the Land Tribunal, as per Annexure- - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27859 WP No. 912 of 2022 M, requires interference by this Court in the present writ petition. In support of her submission, she referred to Section 48A(6) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'KLRA'). 10. Nextly, Smt. Meghana Ballal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, referred to the judgment of this Court in the case of SMT. GANGAMMA AND ANOTHER VS. TAHSILDAR AND OTHERS, reported in ILR 2005 KAR 4852 and submitted that, the Land Tribunal has jurisdiction to make necessary typographical corrections in its earlier order and such correction was essential to consider the petitioner’s claim for the entire extent of 0.80 cents, as originally claimed by the petitioner's father. Therefore, she contended that the impugned order at Annexure-M requires to be set aside in this writ petition. 11. Per contra, Mr.Roopesh, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2, invited the attention of the Court to the provision under Section 48A(6) of the Act, and submitted that, what is provided in the said provision is to make necessary corrections if any, in cases of typographical or clerical or - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27859 WP No. 912 of 2022 arithmetical mistakes, since the original order passed by the Land Tribunal, as per Annexure-F, has reached finality by granting occupancy rights to the extent of 0.25 cents in favour of the father of the petitioner, and thereafter, the application seeking review of the same, cannot be accepted. He further submitted that the second application was rightly rejected by the Land Tribunal, as there was no clerical or arithmetical error in the original order. Therefore, he sought to justify the impugned order passed by the Land Tribunal, as per Annexure- M to the writ petition. Learned AGA, argued on the similar lines. 12. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is not in dispute that the father of the petitioner herein, as per Annexure-A to the writ petition, made an application seeking occupancy rights in respect of the various lands, including the land bearing Survey No.35/2 to the extent of 0.80 cents situated in Triuvailu Village. The Land Tribunal, after conducting an enquiry, by its order dated 01.10.1981 (Annexure-F), granted occupancy rights to the petitioner's father to the extent of 0.25 cents out of the 0.80 cents claimed in Survey No.35/2. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27859 WP No. 912 of 2022 13. It is also forthcoming from the writ petition that the father of the petitioner has also made an application in Form No.7A, which came to be rejected. Thereafter, the petitioner herein made an application under Section 48A(6) of the Act (Annexure-K), seeking correction in the clerical mistake appears to have crept in the order of the Land Tribunal. The said application was opposed by the respondents herein. The Land Tribunal, by its order dated 22.10.2021 (Annexure-M), rejected the said application and as such, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 14. Having taken note of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, it is observed that the Land Tribunal, after considering the entire material on record, by its order dated 01.10.1981 (Annexure-F), granted occupancy rights to the extent of 0.25 cents in land bearing Survey No.35/2. It is also forthcoming that, the second application filed in Form No.7A by the father of the petitioner came to be rejected. 15. In that view of the matter, taking into consideration, the finding recorded by the Land Tribunal in the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27859 WP No. 912 of 2022 impugned order at Annexure-M and also the language employed in Section 48A(6) of the Act, I am of the view that, no interference is called for in the present writ petition. 16. It is also relevant to extract the provision under Section 48-A(6) of the Act, which reads as under: "(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. 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. 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 concern-parties." (Emphasis supplied) 17. I have careful examined the Proviso No.1 to Section 48-A(6) of the Act, it makes it clear that the Land Tribunal has jurisdiction only with regard to making correction to any clerical - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27859 WP No. 912 of 2022 or arithmetical mistakes and that cannot be construed as conferring authority to review the entire order passed by the Tribunal (as per Annexure-F to the writ petition). In this regard, it is relevant to refer to the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of H.B. SHINGAPPA GOWDA VS. LAND REFORMS TRIBUNAL AND OTHERS passed in WA No.205/1977 dated 18.08.1977, reported in AIR 1977 KAR 218, wherein it has been held that the Land Tribunal under Section 48A of the Act, has no right to review or recall its own order. 18. In that view of the matter, taking into consideration the declaration of law laid down by this Court in the above writ petition, wherein it is stated that, there is no provision under the Act empowering the Tribunal to entertain the second application by the same applicant for further grant of occupancy right on the ground that the earlier application was withdrawn or not pressed under pressure or coercion and in this regard, this Court has held that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the second application. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27859 WP No. 912 of 2022 19. Though the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. Gangamma (supra), it is stated in the same judgment by this Court, by referring to decision in the case of Y.S. RAMACHANDRA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS, and following the decision of the Division Bench in the case of PADMARAJA ATHIKARI VS. LAND TRIBUNAL, KARKALA (WP No.20080/1991 dated 15.07.1993), reported in ILR 2005 KAR 2111, held that even if there is a mistake in mentioning the Survey numbers in Form No.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 and same cannot be construed to confer larger extent of land. 20. However, in the present case, the question is relating to the grant of occupancy rights by the Tribunal at the first instance, as per Annexure-F, which was restricted to 0.25 cents out of 0.80 cents as being claimed and second application was rightly rejected by the Land Tribunal, as per Annexure-M to the writ petition. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27859 WP No. 912 of 2022 21. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered view that no interference is called for in the present writ petition. This Court has limited jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with regard to the fact findings made by the Land Tribunal. 22. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the present writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as being devoid of merit. SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SMC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 50