Section 48A(6) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, allows only for the correction of typographical, clerical, or arithmetical mistakes and does not grant the Land Tribunal the power to review or recall orders that have attained finality.

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS OF THE CASE IN WP NO.912/2022 AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP NO.912/2022 DATED:22.07.2025 AND FURTHER BE PLEASED ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION IN W.P. 912/2022 AND ACCORDINGLY REMAND THE MATTER TO LAND TRIBUNAL MANGALORE TALUK FOR FRESH HEARING AND GRANT SUCH OTHER AND FURTHER RELIEFS AS ARE JUST INCLUDING THE COSTS OF THIS APPEAL.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF)

This intra Court appeal by unsuccessful petitioner in W.P.No.912/2022, challenging the order dated 22.07.2025 passed by the Writ Court. The Writ Court dismissed the writ petition declining to interfere in the order dated 22.10.2021 passed by the Mangalore Taluka Land Tribunal, D.K.Mangaluru

The parties are referred to by their rankings before the Tribunal.

The facts germane to the file of this writ appeal are as under:

The petitioner was before the Writ Court seeking for the following reliefs:

"i. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction quashing the order dated 22.10.2021 passed by the Mangalore Taluka Land Tribunal, Dakshina Kannada, in the case LRT:1038:78-79 and 1109:78-79 (Annexure-M)

ii. Direct the 1st respondent to pay costs of this petition."

It is the claim of the petitioner that, father of the petitioner had a Chalageni holding in respect of subject land which he was cultivating. He had filed Form No.7, seeking occupancy rights over the land (Annexure-A). The land claimed under Form No.7 along with other properties also in Sy.No.35/2 to an extent of 0.80 cents, by order dated 01.10.1981, the Tribunal had granted occupancy rights with respect to Sy.No.35/2 to an extent of 0.25 cents, with rights in other lands.¹'Land Tribunal'

Thereafter, after lapse of several years, Form No.7A came to be filed by the petitioner in respect of remaining extent of land of 0.80 cents claimed under Form-7 in Sy.No.35/2 i.e., to an extent of 0.55 cents. The application came to be rejected by the Authority. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application under Section 48A(6) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961²KLRA claiming that the mistake crept in the order of the Land Tribunal dated 01.10.1981 may be corrected and the extent of land may be corrected from 0.25 cents to 0.80 cents. The application came to be rejected by the Land Tribunal vide order dated 22.10.2021. Against the order of rejection of application filed under Section 48A(6) of KLRA, the petitioner was before the Writ Court.

Before the Writ Court, it was contented that there was no impediment for the Land Tribunal to correct the mistake in the order by making the extent of land 0.80 cents instead of 0.25 cents. It was further contented that the petitioner is in cultivation of the entire extent of 0.80 cents of land. The petitioner relying on the judgment of this Court in Gangamma and Another Vs. Tahsildar and others ³ILR 2005 KAR 4852, to contend that the Land Tribunal has jurisdiction to make necessary typographical corrections in its earlier order and such correction was essential to consider the petitioner's claim for the extent of 0.80 cents as originally claimed by the father of the petitioner.

Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 referring to provision under Section 48A(6) of the KLRA submitted that what is provided in the said provision is to make necessary corrections if any, in cases of typographical or clerical or arithmetical mistakes, since the original order passed by the Land Tribunal at Annexure-F, dated 01.10.1981, conferring the occupancy rights to an extent of 0.25 cents has reached finality, in favour of father of the petitioner, the same cannot now sought to be corrected under the garb of typographica