NARAYANAPPA (D) BY LRS.versusB.S. RAMASWAMY (D) BY LRS. & ORS.

                        [2016] 3 S.C.R. 783


                 NARAYANAPPA (D) BY LRS.                              A
                                v.
            B.S. RAMASWAMY (D) BY LRS. & ORS.
                  (Civil Appeal No. 7343 of2016)
                        AUGUST 08, 2016                               B

       (MADAN B. LOKUR AND R.K. AGRAWAL, JJ.]
      Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961: s.48-A and its proviso -
Claim for occupancy rights before the Tribunal - Correction of
mistake in any order passed by the Tribunal - Permissibility - In c
the instant case, appellant filed application in Form 7 under the
Karnataka Land Reforms Rules, 1974 for claiming occupancy rights
in respect of land - Application stood dismissed - Dismissal order
remained unchallenged and thus attained finality - After cut off
date for filing application in Form 7, appellant sought amendment
in Form 7 claiming occupancy rights in respect of another land on D
the ground that he being ill(terate and not able to understand the
contents of application committed bona fide mistake in not making
claim at appropriate time - Tribunal allowed the amendment - High
Court reversed the order of Tribunal on the ground that once
application in Form 7 was disposed of by Tribunal the question of
                                                                        E
its amendment would not arise - On appeal, held: Appellant sought
to circumvent the provisions of the Act by making a fresh claim
after the cut-off date by styling it as an amendment to the original
application in Form 7 - This was clearly impermissible and was an
attempt to do something in an indirect manner which could not ·
have been done by him directly - Tribunal having adjudicated ipon F
the application, it could have only corrected clerical or arithme.tical
errors as permitted by s. 48-A of the Act - What appellant sought
was not only a change in the sun1ey number but also a change in
the village and also a change in the area of the land for which
occupancy rights were claimed - This was clearly beyond the
                                                                        G
ambit of a clerical or arithmetical error - Thus, there was no error
 in the order of High Court - Karnataka Land Reforms Rules, 1974
- Land laws.
     Dismissing the appeal, the Court

                                                                       H
                                783
784            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2016] 3 S.C.R.



A          HELD: The Tribunal having adjudicated upon the
      application, it could only correct clerical or arithmetical errors
      as permitted by Section 48-A of the Act. The amendment sought
      by the appellant was not in the nature of a clerical or arithmetical
      error. What he sought was not only a change in the survey
      number but also a change in the village and also a change in
B
      the area of the land· for which occupancy rights were claimed.
      That apart, the previous order of the Tribunal had attained finality
      since the appellant did not challenge its correctness before any
      forum. Therefore, the proposed amendment sought by him was
      not in the nature of an amendment to the original application in
c     Form 7 but a fresh claim made by him for a different parcel of
      land after the cut-off date of 30th June, 1979. [Para 19] [789-
      B-E]
            Ho1111a111111a & Ors. v. Nanjundaiah & Ors. (2008) 12
            SCC 338 : 2008 (5) SCR 839; Syed Beary (Dead) By
D           Lrs. v. Dennis Lewis (Dead) by Lrs. & Ors. (2007) 15
            sec 629 - relied on.
                             Case Law Reference
         2008 (5) SCR 839             relied on             Para 17

E        (2007) 15 sec 629            relied on             Para 18
           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7343 of
      2016.
          From the Judgment and Order dated 07.11.2012 of the High Court
      ofKarnataka at Bangalore in WA No. 469 of2010 (KLRA).
 F         R. S. Hegde, Mrs. Farhat Jahan Rehmani, Rajeev Singh, Advs. for
      the Appellants.
           P. V. Shetty, Sr. Adv, Rajesh Mahale, Krutin R. Joshi, S. M. Babu,
      V. N. Raghupathy, Parikshit P. Angadi, Advs. for the Respondents.
 G         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
           MADAN B. LOKUR, J. 1. Leave granted.
           2. The question in this appeal is whether the High Court was
      correct in holding that the appellant Narayanappa (represented by
      his legal representatives) was not entitled to claim occupancy rights in
 H
   NARAYANAPPA (D) BY LRS. v. B.S. RAMASWAMY (D) BY                          785
              LRS. [MADAN B. LOKUR, J.)

the land in question under of the provisions of the Karnataka Land           A
Reforms Act, 1961. In our opinion, the question is required to be
answered in the affirmative, and we do so.
      3. On the enactment of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') all tenanted lands on the appointed
date that is !st March, 1974 vested with the State Government free of         B
all encumbrances. However, tenants in possession of land on the
appointed date were entitled to seek registration of their occupancy
rights over the land in their possession. The Land Reforms Tribunal
(hereinafter 'the Tribunal') was constituted to look into such claims,
the last date for filing the claim being 30th June, 1979.
                                                                              c
     4. On 31st December, 1974 the appellant Narayanappa (now
deceased) claimed occupancy right by filing an application in Form 7
under the Karnataka Land Reforms Rules, 1974 and invoking the
provisions of Section 48-A of the Act. Jn the application, Narayanappa
claimed occupancy rights in respect of land bearing Survey No. 93
measuring 4 acres 20 guntas in village Chalamakunte in Devanahalli            D
taluka. In the application/Form the landlords were shown to be H.
Kempaiah and B.S. Ramaswamy.
     5. When Ramaswamy received notice of the application from
the Tribunal with regard to the claim made by Narayanappa, he made
an endorsement on the notice that he is not the owner of the land and         E
therefore he has no interest in it.
      6. When the application was heard by the Tribunal, Narayanappa's
claim was verified and it was held that since !le was not a tenant in
the land in question but was a kathedar, the question of granting
occupancy rights in his favour did not arise. Accordingly, the Tribunal       F
passed an order on 24th April, 1981 rej.ecting the application/Form 7
filed by Narayanappa. The impugned judgment and order passed by the
High Court records that the order dated 24th April, J 981 was not
challenged and has attained finality.
     7. On 5th Febnlary, 1982 well after the cut-off date for filing          G
the application/Form claiming occupancy rights, Narayanappa moved
for an amendment in Form 7. Through the proposed amendment, he
now claimed occupancy rights in Survey No. 134 in hamlet Yediyur
in village Mahadevakodigehalli in Devanahalli taluka. According to
Narayanappa he was illiterate, the Form had been filled up by someone
                                                                              H
786            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         (2016] 3 S.C.R.



A     on his behalf and since he was not able to understand its contents, a
      bona fide error had been made in not making a claim at the appropriate
      time in respect of Survey No. 134. At this stage, it may be mentio~ed
      that the claim made by Narayanappa in respect of Survey No. 93 was
      for 4 acres 20 guntas of land while the proposed amendment in
      respect of Survey No. 134 was for 8 acres 01 gunta of land.
·B
           8. When Ramaswamy came to know of the proposed
      amendment sought in !'larayanappa's application, he raised an objection
      but by an order dated 20th August,.1982 the Tribunal accepted the
      application and thereby the proposed aniendment, while rejecting the
      objections raised by Ramaswamy.
 c
            9. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal
      Ramaswamy (Dead) by Lrs. preferred a writ petition in ~he Karnataka
      High Court being W.P. No. 30929 of2001 (KLRA). The learned
      Single Judge hearing the writ petition dismissed it by a judgment and
      order dated 18th June, 2009. The learned Single Judge relied primarily
 D    on the provisions of sub-Section (3) of Section 48-A of the Act to the
      effect that the Tribunal was empowered to permit an amendment in the ·
      application filed in Form 7. It was held that the Tribunal was not only
      entitled to permit the amendment but in view of sub-Section (6) it was
      empowered to suo motu rectify any error in. the application.
 E          10. The relevant extract of Section 48-A of the Act reads as
      follows:-
            "48-A. Enquiry by the Tribunal, etc. - (!) Every person
            entitled to be registered as an occupant under Section 45 may
            make an application to the Tribunal in this behalf. Every such
 F          application shall, save as provided in this Act, be made before the
            expiry of a period of six months from the date of the
           ·commencement of Section I of the Karnataka Land Reforms
            (Amendment)Act, 1978.
            2)xxx xxx xxx
 G
            3) The form of the application, the form of the notices, the
            manner of publishing or serving the notices and all other matters
            connected therewith shall be such as may be prescribed. The
            Tribunal may for valid and sufficient reasons permit the tenant
            fo amend the application.
 H
  NARAYANAPPA (D) BY LRS. v. B.S. RAMASWAMY (D) BY                           787
             LRS. [MADAN B. LOK UR, J.]

       (4) xxx xxx xxx                                                       A
       (5)   xxx xxx xxx
       (5-A) xxx xxx xxx
       (6) The order of the Tribunal under this section shall be final
       and the Tribunal shall send a copy of every order passed by it to      B
       the Tahsildar and the parties concerned: Provided that the Tribunal
       may, on the application of any of the parties, for reasons to be
       recorded in writing, correct any clerical or arithmetical mistakes
       in any order passed by it:
       Provided further that the Tribunal may on its own or on the            c-
       application of any of the parties, for reasons to· be recorded in
       writing, correct the extent of land in any order passed by it after
       causing actual measurement and after giving an opportunity of
       being heard to the concerned parties.
       (7) xxx xxx xxx                                                        D
       (8) xxx xxx xxx
       11. Feeling aggrieved, Ramaswamy prefeITed Writ Appeal No.
  469 of 2010 KLRA) before the Division Bench of the Karnataka
  High Court. By the impugned judgment and order dated 7th November,
  2012 the writ appeal was allowed by the High Court. Feeling aggrieved,      E
  Narayanappa (now deceased and represented by his legal
. representatives) has preferred the present appeal.
      12. In allowing the writ appeal, the High Court took into
 consideration the provisions of Section 48-A of the Act as well as
 the second proviso inserted in sub-Section (6) of Section 48-A of the        F
 Act which came into force on 20th October, 1995 and which was
 apparently relied upon by the learned Single Judge without any specific
 reference to it.
       13. Be that as it may, the High Court considered several decisions
 cited before it and held that an amendment application has necessarily       G
 to be filed before the Tribunal adjudicates on the application. It was
 held that once the application in Form 7 is disposed of by the Tribunal,
 the question of its amendment would not arise since there was no
 application before the Tribunal. It was further held, on a reading of
 Section 48-A of the Act, that the Tribunal could rectify clerical or
                                                                              H
788              SUPREME COURT REPORTS                               [2016] 3 S.C.R.



A     arithmetical mistakes in its order but that thereafter it could not
      make any corrections in the application in Form 7.
           14. With reference to the various decisions cited before it, the High
      Court concluded that they relied on a proposed amendment to the
      application during the pendency of the proceedings before the Tribunal.
B     As such the cited decisions were not applicable to the facts of
      the case. Consequently, the Division Bench of the High Court allowed
      the writ appeal and set aside the order passed by the learned Single
      Judge as well as the order passed by the Land Reforms Tribunal.
            15. Learned counsel for Narayanappa was not able to cite any
c     decision before us to the effect that an application for amendment
      of the application in Form7 could be moved by a claimant after the
      disposal of the application by the Tribunal. However, reference was
      made to Hanumappa Dead) by Lrs. v. Seethabai & Ors.Ill wherein
      an amendment in the order passed by the Tribunal was permitted by
      this Court even though there was a lapse of about 11 years in moving
D     the application for amendment.
            16. In that decision, instead of granting occupancy rights in respect
      of Survey No. 45, the Tribunal had granted occupancy rights in respect
      of Survey No. 54. This Court held that this was an obvious clerical
      errorthat needed to be corrected. Clearly, that decision has no application
 E    to the facts of the present appeal.
             17. Reference was also made by learned counsel for Narayanappa
      to Honnamma & Ors. v. Nanjundaiah & Ors.1 21 to contend that
      an application for amendment of Form 7 was permissible. With the
      assistance of learned counsel we have gone through the decision and
 F    find that the question that arose was whether the Tribunal could permit
      an amendment of Form 7 after the cut-off date of 30th June, 1979
      the last date for filing the application under Fonn 7. This Court held
      that it was permissible to amend the application in Form 7 even after the
      cut-off date. The issue whether an amendment could be carried out in
 G    the application after the decision of the Tribunal was not under
      consideration in this Court. The cited decision therefore does not
      render any assistance to Narayanappa.
             18. Reference was also made to Syed Beary (Dead) By Lrs. v.
      1
          CiYil Appeal No.1737 of 1999 decided on 28th July. 2004.
 H        (2oosi 12 sec 338
    NARAYANAPPA (D) BY LRS. v. B.S. RAMASWAMY (D) BY                          789
               LRS. [MADAN B. LOKUR, J.l

Dennis Lewis (De;id) by Lrs. & Ors.131 where the same issue had               A
arisen namely whether an application for amendment of Form 7 could
be entertained after 30th June, 1979. This Court answered the issue
in the affirmative but again the question whether an amendment
could be made in the application in Form 7 after the decision of the
Tribunal was not the subject matter of discussion.
                                                                               B
      19. In our opinion, the Tribunal having adjudicated upon the
application, it could only correct clerical or arithmetical errors as
permitted by Section 48-A of the Act. The amendment sought by
Narayanappa was not in the nature of a clerical or arithmetical error.
What he sought was not only a change in the survey number but also
a change in the village and also a change in the area of the land for
                                                                               c
which occupancy rights were claimed. This was clearly beyond the
ambit of a clerical or arithmetical error. That apart, the order of the
Tribunal passed on 24th April, 1981 had attained finality since
Narayanappa did not challenge its correctness before any forum.
Therefore, the proposed amendment sought by Narayanappa was not                D
in the n·ature of an amendment to the original application in Form 7 but
a fresh claim made by him for a different parcel of land after the cut-
off date of 30th June, 1979. In other words Narayanappa sought
to circumvent the provisions of the Act by making a fresh claim after the
cut- off date by styling it as an amendment to the original application in
Form 7. This was clearly impermissible and was an attempt to do so             E
something in an indirect manner which could not have been done by him
directly.
    20. In view of the above, we find no reason to interfere with the
judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court
and accordingly dismiss the appeal.                                            f
Devika Gujral                                             Appeal dismissed.




3
    (2007) 15 sec 629