The main legal point established in the judgment is the Tribunal's power under Section 48-A(6) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 to rectify clerical or typographical errors in its order, and the importance of verifying and ascertaining the correctness of the survey number.

JUDGMENT :

Vishwajith Shetty J.

This intra court appeal is filed assailing the order dated 16.03.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.33277/2012.

2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and also perused the material available on record.

3. Facts leading to filing of this appeal briefly stated are, the mother of the appellant and her brother M.Nagesh namely respondent No.9 herein had filed two separate Form No.7 under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (for short "the Act, 1961") claiming occupancy rights of the lands mentioned therein. In Form No.7 filed by M.Nagesh, he had requested for granting occupancy rights in respect of land bearing survey No.108/1A while the mother of the appellant namely Smt. Oovamma had filed Form No.7 in respect of land bearing survey No.110/1, 108/1A, 110/6, 6/2C and 6/2A. Since the land bearing survey No.6/2C and 6/2A were situated in a different village, the claim in respect of said two items of land was transferred to another Tribunal while the claim in respect of other three items of the land which were situated in Kadri B Village was considered by the respondent/Tribunal and by order dated 14.10.1980, the Tribunal had granted occupancy rights of the land bearing Nos.108-1A1, 108-1A2, 110-6A of Kadri B Village in favour of the appellant's mother. Subsequently, in the year 2009, an application was filed by the legal representatives of late Oovamma contending that the Tribunal by mistake had granted occupancy rights of the land bearing survey 108-1A2 and 110-6A instead of 110/1 and accordingly had prayed to rectify the said mistake committed by the Tribunal. The said application was opposed by the landlords. The Tribunal by order dated 23.09.2011 allowed the said application and directed to carryout necessary correction in the order dated 14.10.1980 with regard to the survey number of the property. The said order dated 23.09.2011 was challenged by the landlords in W.P.No.33277/2012 which was allowed by the learned Single Judge of this Court vide order impugned and being aggrieved by the same, respondent No.4 in the said writ petition who is the daughter of Oovamma has filed this intra court appeal.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Single Judge had erred in observing that the Tribunal had reviewed its own order dated 14.10.1980 while passing the order dated 23.09.2011. He submits that the Tribunal has exercised its powers under Section 48-A(6) of the Act, 1961 and corrected the clerical or typographical error that had crept in mentioning wrong survey number. He refers to the Form No.7 and submits that the land bearing survey No.110/1 was claimed in Form No.7 and the Tribunal had granted survey No.108/1A2 instead of the said survey number and it is under this circumstance, a request was made before the Tribunal to rectify the mistake by mentioning the correct survey number of the property. He submits that the Tribunal in order to ascertain the correctness of the prayer made in the application had held a spot inspection and found that the legal representatives of late Oovamma were in possession of the land bearing survey No.110/1 and accordingly has passed an order in exercise of its powers under Section 48-A(6) of the Act, 1961 rectifying the mistake committed by it in mentioning the survey number of the land in its order dated 14.10.1980. He submits that the Tribunal has jurisdiction and power to correct its mistake and in support of his contention, he has relied upon the judgments reported in the case of Ramachandra Devasthanam Sawada vs. Subbanna Shetty & Ors., ILR 1998 KAR 1588, Y.S.Ramachandra Rao vs. State of Karnataka and Others, ILR 2005 KAR 2111 and in the case of Honnamma and Ors. vs. Nanjundaiah(D) by L.Rs. and Ors., 2008 AIR SCW 2787.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the landlords has argued in support of the order passed by the learned Single Judge and contends that the application is filed after