This intra Court appeal emanates from an order

dated 04.08.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge by

which the writ petition preferred by the respondent

Nos.3 to 5 has been dismissed.

2. Facts giving rise to filing of this appeal briefly

stated are that one late Vasu Acharya filed an

application in Form No.7 on 26.08.1974 seeking

occupancy rights under the provisions of the Karnataka

Land Reforms Act, 1961 for grant of occupancy rights.

The Land Tribunal, by an order dated 15.10.1981

granted occupancy rights to late Vasu Acharya and

rejected the claim insofar as it pertains to land bearing

- 4 -

Sy.No.145/2 measuring 2.92 acres of Paduru Village.

The order passed by the Land Tribunal was challenged

in a writ petition. The learned Single Judge, by an order

dated 24.07.1985 allowed the writ petition and remitted

the matter to consider the claim of late Vasu Acharya in

respect

of

Sy.No.145/2

measuring

2.92

acres.

Thereafter, late Vasu Acharya filed an application

seeking amendment of Form No.7 on 16.02.1989. By

the proposed amendment, late Vasu Acharya sought to

change Sy.No.145/2 measuring 2.92 acres and to delete

the claim for 3.99 cents and amend it for 99 cents in

Sy.No.99/4. The Land Tribunal, by an order dated

27.12.2011 granted occupancy rights to legal heirs of

late

Vasu

Acharya

in

respect

of

land

bearing

Sy.No.145/2 measuring 3.02 acres. The aforesaid order

was challenged by respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5 in a writ

petition. The learned Single Judge, by an order dated

04.08.2021 has allowed the aforesaid writ petition. In

- 5 -

the aforesaid factual background, this appeal arises for

our consideration.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted

that even beyond the cut off date i.e. 30.06.1979, it is

permissible for an applicant to file an application

seeking amendment of Form No.7. In support of

aforesaid submission, reliance has been placed on the

decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'NARAYANAPPA

(D) BY LRS. Vs. B.S.RAMASWAMY (D) BY LRS.' (2016)

15 SCC 191.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the

respondent Nos.5 and 6 submits that the issue involved

in this appeal is no longer res integra and is squarely

covered by a Division Bench of this Court in

'SEETHADEVI Vs. NARAYAN KAMATH' ILR 1987 KAR

1779.

- 6 -

5. We have considered the submissions made on

both sides and have perused the record. Admittedly,

original claimant namely late Vasu Acharya had filed an

application in Form No.7 on 26.08.1974. Thereafter, he

filed an application on 16.02.1989 seeking amendment

of Form No.7 by which not only the survey number but

area of the land was sought to be changed. A Division

Bench of this Court in SEETHADEVI, supra, has held

as under:

"6. Learned Counsel for the 1st respondent,

however, maintained that the first application read

with the subsequent application made before the

Tribunal would show that what the 1st respondent

was seeking was only an amendment, to the earlier

application We are of the view that as the 1st

respondent had not claimed that he was a tenant of

any item of lands under the appellant he was at

liberty to make a fresh application only before the

expiry of 30 6-1979. Not having done so, he is now

trying to contend that the fresh application was in

the nature of an amendment to the first application.

- 7 -

It cannot be regarded as an application for

amendment of the original Form No. 7. In the result,

we answer the question set-out first as follows: No

person can make an application in Form No. 7 or an

application in the nature of an amendment after the

expiry of the period fixed under Section 48A(1) of

the Act seeking occupancy right in respect of new

item of land not included in the application filed

within time."

6. Thus, it is evident that the issue involved in this

appeal is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by

this Court in SEETHADEVI, supra. Sofar as reliance

placed by the appellant in NARAYANAPPA (D) BY LRS

supra, is concerned, the aforesaid case is an