ORDER :

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the contesting respondents and the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate.

2. The petitioners claim to be landlords and are before this court being aggrieved by the order dated 23.09.2011 passed by the Land Tribunal, Mangalore Taluk, Dakshina Kannada.

3. The brief facts which are necessary for disposal of the writ petition are that:

Mother of respondents No.1 and 4 the late Oovamma had filed Form No.7 before the Land Tribunal which is produced and marked as Annexure-B and Form No.7 filed by the first respondent M. Nagesh S/o late Oovamma is produced and marked as Annexure-C. On perusal of Annexure-B, the Form No.7 filed by late Oovamma, it is seen that she has claimed tenancy rights over several survey numbers i.e. 110/1, 108/1A, 110/6 of Kadri B Village and Survey No.6/20 and 6/2A of Kanakanady B Village.

The first respondent son has filed Form No.7. In his Form No.7 he has requested for registering him as a tenant in respect of the land comprised in Survey No.108/1A. Pursuant to the applications spot mahazar was also conducted and in the spot mahazar the mother of the first respondent late Oovamma was found to be in occupation of the lands comprised in Survey No.1081A1/3, 1081A2/A and 1106A/1, 62C and 62A1 only. Whereas, the claim was in respect of 1101, 1081A, 1106, 62C, 62A. Pursuant to the report an enquiry was conducted and after appreciating the material on record, the land tribunal was pleased to accept and confer occupancy rights on the late Oovamma in respect of the lands comprised in Sy. No.1081A1 (41 cents), 1081A2 (28 cents), Survey No.1106A (25 cents) only. In respect of the claim over the lands in Sy. No.62C and 62A1 the land tribunal directed that the same be forwarded to the other tribunal. This order dated 14.10.1980 was not called in question by either of the parties and the same has attained finality.

That in the year 2009 an application came to be preferred by the legal representatives of late Oovamma stating that in the declaration contained in Form No.7, the late Oovamma had sought for conferment of occupancy rights in respect of 110/1, 108/1A and 110/6 of Kadri village. That while granting the application the tribunal has granted occupancy rights in Sy. No.1081A1, 1081A2 and 1106A. That on account of a mistake that has crept in, the tribunal has erroneously described Sy. No.110/1 as Survey No.1081A2 of Kadri village and hence sought for rectification of order and prayed that the survey No.1081A2 be read as Sy. No.110/1.

The said application came to be stoutly resisted by the petitioners landlord. Detailed and several grounds have been raised by the landlords objecting to the application and prayed the same be rejected. The land tribunal after consideration has been pleased to pass the impugned order dated 23.09.2011 whereby, it has been pleased to accept the application and has ordered as under:

Other language

Aggrieved by the same, the instant writ petition is preferred.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the tribunal is not vested with any power to review or modify its order and that once the order is passed, the tribunal is rendered functus officio except to the extent of carrying out correction of certain errors as is permitted under the statute. The learned counsel would submit that once the tribunal has refused to grant or even if the tribunal has merely omitted to not recognize the tenancy of the claimant, the same has to be construed as a rejection. In this regard the learned counsel for the petitioners would place reliance on the order of the Division Bench rendered in W.P. No.3960/1989. The Division Bench in para 3 has held as under:

“3. The claim of the petitioner was the subject matter of the proceedings before the Tribunal and when an order was passed on 5182 the petitioner cannot pretend that he is not aware of the order made by the Tribunal now. When the claim is made not only in respect of the land for grant