Page 1

REPORTABLE

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7343  OF 2016

(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 18550 of 2013)

Narayanappa (D) By Lrs.         .…Appellants

Versus

B.S. Ramaswamy (D) By Lrs. & Ors.        ….Respondents

J U D G M E N T

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  the  land in  question under  of  the  provisions  of  the

Karnataka  Land  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  1st March,  1974 vested with  the  State

C.A.No.7343/16 (@SLP(C) No.18550/2013)                                 Page 1 of 9

Page 2

Government  free  of  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.

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.   In  the

application, Narayanappa claimed occupancy rights in respect of

land  bearing  Survey  No.  93  measuring  4  acres  20  guntas  in

village  Chalamakunte  in  Devanahalli  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 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 he

was not a tenant in the land in question but was a kathedar, the

C.A.No.7343/16 (@SLP(C) No.18550/2013)                                 Page 2 of 9

Page 3

question of granting occupancy rights in his favour did not arise.

Accordingly, the Tribunal passed an order on 24th April,  1981

rejecting  the  application/Form  7  filed  by  Narayanappa.   The

impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court records

that the order dated 24th April, 1981 was not challenged and has

attained finality.   

7. On 5th February, 1982 well after the cut-off date for filing 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 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 mentioned 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.

8. When Ramaswamy came to know of the proposed amendment

sought in Narayanappa’s application, he raised an objection but

by an order dated 20th August, 1982 the Tribunal accepted the

C.A.No.7343/16 (@SLP(C) No.18550/2013)                                 Page 3 of 9

Page 4

application  and  thereby  the  proposed  amendment,  while

rejecting the objections raised by Ramaswamy.

9. Feeling  aggrieved  by  the  order  passed  by  the  Tribunal

Ramaswamy  (Dead)  by  Lrs.  preferred  a  writ  petition  in  the

Karnataka High Court  being W.P.  No.  30929 of  2001 (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 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.    

10. The relevant extract of Section 48-A of the Act reads as

follows:- “48-A.  Enquiry  by  the  Tribunal,  etc. –  (1)  Every  person entitled to be registered as an occupant under Section 45 may make an application to the Tribunal in this behalf.  Every such 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 1 of  the Karnataka Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1978. (2)xxx xxx xxx (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 to amend the application. (4)   xxx xxx xxx

C.A.No.7343/16 (@SLP(C) No.18550/2013)                                 Page 4 of 9

Page 5

(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 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 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  (8)  xxx xxx xxx

11. Feeling aggrieved, Ramaswamy preferred 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, 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 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

C.A.No.7343/16 (@SLP(C) No.18550/2013)                                 Page 5 of 9

Page 6

has necessarily 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  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.  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

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.

C.A.No.7343/16 (@SLP(C) No.18550/2013)                                 Page 6 of 9

Page 7

Seethabai & Ors.1 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  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 error that needed to be corrected.  Clearly,

that  decision  has  no  application  to  the  facts  of  the  present

appeal.

17. Reference  was  also  made  by  learned  counsel  for

Narayanappa to Honnamma & Ors. v. Nanjundaiah & Ors.2 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 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  Form  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 the application after the decision of the Tribunal was not

1 Civil Appeal No.1737 of 1999 decided on 28th July, 2004.  2 (2008) 12 SCC 338

C.A.No.7343/16 (@SLP(C) No.18550/2013)                                 Page 7 of 9

Page 8

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.

Dennis Lewis (Dead) by Lrs. & Ors.3 where the same issue had

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.  

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 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

3 (2007) 15 SCC 629

C.A.No.7343/16 (@SLP(C) No.18550/2013)                                 Page 8 of 9

Page 9

amendment sought by Narayanappa was not in the nature 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 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.    

……....………………….J      (Madan B. Lokur)

                                    ……….………………….J New Delhi;                                (R.K. Agrawal) August 8, 2016

C.A.No.7343/16 (@SLP(C) No.18550/2013)                                 Page 9 of 9