B.S. Patil, J. - In these writ petitions, petitioners are calling in question the order dated 16-2-2012 passed by the Land Tribunal, Moodabidare, Mangaiuru Taluk, thereby allowing the interim application filed by the tenant-respondent 1 herein seeking amendment of Form 7 filed by him.

2. The dispute raised in these writ petitions has got a checkered history. Respondent 1 herein claimed as tenant of certain lands. He filed Form 7 under Section 48-A(1) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act'), seeking grant of occupancy rights in respect of four survey numbers viz.: (1) Sy. No. 23/4 measuring 85 cents; (2) Sy. No. 23/7 measuring 17 cents; (3) Sy. No. 22/4 measuring 66 cents; and (4) Sy. No. 138/2 measuring 52 cents, all situated at Hosabettu Village of Karkala Taluk, Mangaiuru District. He claimed that he was cultivating the lands in question for the last more than 50 years.

3. The Land Tribunal held an inquiry and passed order dated 24-9-1981 granting occupancy rights in respect of all the aforesaid lands including another Sy. No. 138/IB measuring 80 cents, which was not mentioned in Form 7 and in respect whereof, claim for grant of occupancy rights was not mentioned.

4. Father of the petitioners-Jayakumar Indra challenged the order passed by the Land Tribunal in W.P. No. 5929 of 1983. It was contended by him that in respect of Sy. No. 138/IB, of which we are now concerned in this writ petition, the order of the Tribunal was wholly without jurisdiction as the tenant had not laid any claim seeking occupancy rights for the said land while filing Form 7. This contention of the landowner was accepted by this Court and this Court passed the following order. -

"Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

2. The impugned order of the Tribunal insofar it relates to land bearing Sy. No. 138/IB is wholly without jurisdiction since respondent 1 did not claim occupancy rights in the said land in Form 7 filed by him.

3. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed, the impugned order is quashed and the matter is remitted to the Land Tribunal for fresh disposal of the claim of respondent 1 after holding a fresh enquiry in strict compliance with the requirements of Rule 17 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Rules, 1974. The impugned order regarding other Sy. Nos. remains undisturbed. It is open to respondent 1 to seek the amendment of his application in Form 7 after notice to the petitioner. No costs.

4. The learned High Court Government Advocate is permitted to file his memo of appearance for respondents no. 1 and 2 within 4 weeks from today."

It is thus clear that the matter was remanded only for consideration with regard to Sy. No. 138/IB, reserving liberty to the tenant to seek amendment of his Form 7.

5. After the matter was remanded to the Tribunal, the tenant-respondent 1 herein filed an application on 31-3-2011 seeking amendment of Form 7 so as to include Sy. No. 138/IB measuring 80 cents in the claim made for grant of occupancy rights. In the affidavit filed in the support of the application, respondent 1-tenant stated that he was an illiterate villager and had wrongly mentioned Sy. No. 22/4 measuring 66 cents in his application filed in Form 7, instead of mentioning Sy. No. 138/IB measuring 80 cents. He further contended that the landlord had indeed consented for grant of occupancy rights by appearing before the Tribunal on the previous occasion, therefore, he did not seek for amendment of Form 7. He also contended that he had developed the land by incurring expenditure and that he was making the application pursuant to the order passed by the High Court. Reliance was placed by him on the surveyor's report.

6. This application was resisted by filing objections by the father of the present petitioners. He contended that the claim sought to be made by way of amendment was false and an after thought one, apart from being time barred.

7. The Tribunal has, allowed the said application accepting the case put forward by the tenan