Smt. Saradamma, Ms. Sowmya, Ms. Ramya and Mr. Karthik vs The State of Karnataka, The Land Tribunal and Sidda Byraiah

Huluvadi G Ramesh

Though respondent No.3 is served, he has remained absent and unrepresented. By an order dated 15-2-1982, the. 2nd respondent Land Tribunal granted occupancy rights in favour of one Bajjanna in respect of Sy.No.34 of D. Narayanapura Village, Bangalore South Taluk, to an extent of 5-00 acres and he was called upon to deposit the premium of Rs. 1,378/-. Accordingly, he deposited the premium amount. Consequently, Certificate in Form 10 as provided u/s 55(1) of Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, was issued. Even mutation entries were also made in the name of the tenant.

When things stood thus, after a lapse of 29 years the 3rd respondent herein filed an application u/s 48A(6) of the Act seeking to modify the extent as 5 acres 28 guntas in place of 5 acres of land for which occupancy rights were conferred. The Tribunal, without issuing notice to the petitioners herein and without conducting any enquiry, has passed the impugned order altering the extent as 5 acres 28 guntas and to enter the name of 3rd respondent by canceling the mutation entries in favour of the petitioners. The same is questioned in this writ petition.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader.

In the first place, it is to be noted that the 3rd respondent has filed application after a lapse of 29 years from the date of order passed by the Land Tribunal granting occupancy rights. There is inordinate delay and laches and the Tribunal ought to have rejected the application on this ground alone. That is not done. The Tribunal has grossly erred in entertaining such a belated application and hence, the impugned order cannot be sustained.

Secondly, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal virtually amounts to review of its own order. That is not permissible in law. The Tribunal can effect corrections or mistakes occurred due to arithmatical, clerical or typographical errors. It cannot review its own order in the guise of effecting correction. The impugned order has virtually taken away the occupancy rights granted earlier.

Thirdly, the 3rd respondent was not a party to the proceedings and therefore, he has no locus standi to seek modification of the cider of Land Tribunal.

Fourthly, the impugned order has virtually taken away the occupancy rights granted by the Tribunal by its earlier order, thereby the settled position has been unsettled after a lapse of 29 years. In the circumstances, the impugned order cannot be sustained and is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed and the impugned order is quashed. The revenue authorities shall make entries in the records in favour of petitioners, who are the legal representatives of original tenant.