Back
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE MR. ALOK ARADHE
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
WRIT APPEAL NO.915/2021(LR)
BETWEEN:
SMT. CHANDRAVATHI
D/O OOVAMMA
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS
R/AT MAROLI, PADAMANE
KANKANADY, MANGALURU - 575 002. ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI VISHWAJITH RAI M, ADV.)
AND:
1.
SRI N. SUBBAN SHIVA RAO
S/O LATE N. SHIVA RAO
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
R/AT NO.17
MILTON STREET, COOKE
TOWN, BENGALURU - 560 005.
2.
SMT. PREMI ROW
W/O G.M. ROW
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS
R/AT NO.11, LlOYD ROAD
COOKE TOWN
BENGALURU - 560 005.
2
3.
SMT. SHIELA P BARUA
W/O P. BARUVA
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
R/AT NO.7/8 HIGH STREET
COOKE TOWN
BENGALURU - 560 005.
SMT. TARA N. CHANDAVARKAR
DEAD BY HER LR'S
4.
SMT. LALITH MULHERKAR
D/O LATE TARA N CHANDAVARKAR
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS.
5.
SMT. ILA CHANDAVARKAR
D/O LATE TARA N, CHANDAVARKAR
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS.
6.
SRI PREMANAND CHANDAVARKAR
S/O LATE TARA N. CHANDAVARKAR
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
7.
SRI SMIR KRISHNAMURTHI
GRAND S/O LATE TARA N CHANDAVARKAR
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS.
ALL ARE R/AT "PRANAM, NO 7
PLACE CROSS ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 020.
8.
SMT. SHANTHA A GERSAPPA
W/O A.B. GERSAPPA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
R/AT NO 7/8, II CROSS
PLACE CROSS ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 020.
9.
M. NAGESH
S/O LATE OOVAMMA
AGE MAJOR
R/AT MAROLI PADE HOUSE
3
(OPP H.O. KARNATAKA BANK)
KADRI, MANGALURU - 575 002.
10.
LAND TRIBUNAL
MANGALURU
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.
11.
STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPTD BY THE SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
M.S. BUILDIGN
DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 001. …RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI K.R. SUBRAMANYA RAO, ADV., FOR R-1 TO R-8;
(R-2 TO R-8 REP. BY GPA HOLDER OF R-1);
SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH B.G., AGA FOR R-10 & R-1;
R-9 IS SERVED)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF
THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO
SET
ASIDE
THE
DATED
16.03.2021
IN
W.P.NO.33277/2021 (LR) PASSED BY THE LEARNED
SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT AND DISMISS
THE SAID WRIT PETITION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING
THIS
DAY,
VISHWAJITH
SHETTY
J.,
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T
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.
4
We have heard the learned counsel appearing
for the parties and also perused the material available on
record.
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
5
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.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits
that the learned Single Judge had erred in observing that
the
Tribunal
had
reviewed
its
own
order
dated
6
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
7
support of his contention, he has relied upon the
judgments reported in the case of Ramachandra
Devasthanam Sawada vs. Subbanna Shetty & Ors.1,
Y.S.Ramachandra Rao vs. State of Karnataka and
Others2 and in the case of Honnamma and Ors. vs.
Nanjundaiah(D) by L.Rs. and Ors3.
Per con
