Karnataka High Court
Smt Jalaja vs The State Of Karnataka on 12 April, 2023
Bench: Alok Aradhe, Vijaykumar A Patil
-1-
WA No.1021 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF APRIL, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
WRIT APPEAL NO.1021 OF 2021 (LR)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. JALAJA
W/O LATE VASU ACHARYA
Digitally AGED ABOUT 91 YEARS.
signed by
RUPA V
2. SUSHEELA
Location: D/O LATE VASU ACHARYA
High Court of
Karnataka AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS.
3. RATHNAKARA
S/O LATE VASU ACHARYA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS.
1 TO 3 ARE R/AT
PADUR DARAKHAST HOUSE
PADUR POST, UDUPI TALUK.
4. SMT. PREMA
W/O SEETHARAM ACHARYA
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
R/O CHANDRA NAGAR, PADUR POST
UDUPI TALUK-574106.
5. SMT. VIJAYA
W/O B K ACHAR
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
POST OFFICE, SHIRVA
UDUPI TALUK-574116.
6. SMT. MALINI
W/O HARISHCHANDRA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
-2-
WA No.1021 of 2021
R/AT JAYADURGA NAGAR
KINNIMULKY, UDUPI-576101.
7. SMT. HEMALATHA
W/O RAVI
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
RASHMI ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING WORKS
AKRAMPALLI ROAD, TIRUPATHI.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. CHANDRANATH ARIGA K, ADV.,)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE 560001.
2. THE LAND TRIBUNAL UDUPI
BY ITS SPECIAL TAHASILDAR AND SECRETARY
UDUPI,UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT.
3. VASANTHI TANTRY
W/O LATE K. VITTALA TANTRY
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS
R/O KATHUR VILLAGE
UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT.
4. MEERA
D/O LATE K. VITTALA TANTRY
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
KALATHUR VILLAGE
URUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT.
5. HEERA
D/O LATE K. VITTALA TANTRY
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
R/O KALATHUR VILLAGE
URUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH B.G. AGA FOR R1 & R2
SRI. BIPIN HEGDE, ADV., FOR C/R4 & R5)
-3-
WA No.1021 of 2021
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
04.08.2021 IN WP No.13704/2012/2014(LR) ALLOW THE
ORDER DATED 27.11.2012 IN LRY-107-104-TRI-1939/81-82
PASSED BY THE LAND TRIBUNAL UDUPI.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
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
WA No.1021 of 2021
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
WA No.1021 of 2021
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.
WA No.1021 of 2021
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.
WA No.1021 of 2021
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 authority
for the proposition that the amendment in the nature of
clerical or arithmetical error can be made even after
expiry of prescribed period i.e. 30.06.1979. However,
the Division Bench of this Court in SEETHADEVI, supra
has expressly held that the amendment in Form No.7
WA No.1021 of 2021
beyond the expiry of the period by including a new item
of land cannot be made.
For the aforementioned reasons, we do not find
any merit in this appeal.
Accordingly, the appeal fails and is hereby
dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
RV
