The court reaffirmed that corrections for clerical errors in land grants are permissible under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, ensuring all parties have the right to present their claims.

JUDGMENT :

C.M. POONACHA, J.

1. The present intra Court appeal is filed calling in question the order dated 4.6.2024 passed in W.P.No.5864/2022 (LR) [impugned order], whereunder the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition filed by the third respondent [writ petitioner] and set aside the order dated 31.1.2013 passed by the Land Tribunal in case Nos.LRT.540-541/1981-82 and confirmed the order dated 1.8.1981 passed by the Land Tribunal.

2. The relevant facts in a nutshell leading to the present appeal are that one Panchu Shettigar [father of the appellant] filed Form No.7 claiming occupancy rights, pursuant to which, the Land Tribunal vide order dated 1.8.1981 granted occupancy rights in favour of said Panju Shettigar (grantee) of an extent of 0.50 acres in Sy.No.63/1A and an extent of 0.89 acres in Sy.No.4 of Kemral Village, Mangaluru Taluk. The appellant (son of the grantee) filed an application under Section 48A(6) of the KARNATAKA LAND REFORMS ACT , 1961 [KLR Act] for correction of the order dated 1.8.1981, consequent to which, the Land Tribunal by order dated 31.1.2013 allowed the said application and corrected the order dated 1.8.1981 and ordered that the grant in Sy.No.63/1A of an extent of 0.50 acres (50 cents) is corrected as 1.00 acre (100 cents). Being aggrieved, the writ petition was filed by the third respondent, who claimed to be the landlord.

3. The learned Single Judge, noticing the scope of Section 48A(6) of the KLR Act held that the same is for making correction of clerical or arithmetical mistakes and the order of the Land Tribunal tantamounts to granting further land, which was in excess of the land claimed by the tenant and hence, interfered with the order of the Land Tribunal. It was further noticed that the order dated 31.1.2013 was passed without hearing the writ petitioner.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant Sri G.Ravishankar Shastry, assailing the order of the learned Single Judge, contends that the writ petition itself was not maintainable since although the writ petitioner contended that he was the grandson of the original land owner, no material was produced in that regard. That the appellant, who was a villager, did not have specific knowledge about the exact survey number and its extent when he made the application in Form No.7 claiming grant of occupancy rights over an extent of 0.50 acres in Sy.No.61/1A and an extent of 0.84 acres in Sy.No.4. That the Land Tribunal, which is a fact finding authority had surveyed the land and recorded that the appellant was in possession of 1.00 acre of land in Sy.No.63/1A along with 0.89 acres in Sy.No.4. However, since the appellant had claimed to be an occupant of only 0.50 acres, the Land Tribunal granted occupancy rights and Form No.10 was issued by the Tahsildar only to the said extent. It is hence contended that the appellant was always in possession of 1.00 acre of land in Sy.No.63/1A and by oversight, by a clerical error in making the application, the original grant by the Land Tribunal was only to an extent of 0.50 acres. The extent in the Mulgeni Deed was also of 0.98 acres. That after the death of the original grantee, his son, who continued to be in possession of 1.00 acre of land in Sy.No.63/1A, noticed the same and then made an application for correction of the extent, which has been rightly allowed by the Land Tribunal vide its order dated 31.1.2013. Hence, it is contended that the learned Single Judge erred in allowing the writ petition and setting aside the order of the Land Tribunal dated 3