NARAYANAPPA (D) BY LRS. versus B.S. RAMASWAMY (D) BY LRS. & ORS.

Citation: [2016] 3 S.C.R. 783 · Decided: 08-08-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MADAN B. LOKUR · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2016] 3 S.C.R. 783 
NARAYANAPPA (D) BY LRS. 
v. 
B.S. RAMASWAMY (D) BY LRS. & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 7343 of2016) 
AUGUST 08, 2016 
(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 
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 
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 
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 
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 
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 
783 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
784 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 3 S.C.R. 
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 
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 
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 
Lrs. v. Dennis Lewis (Dead) by Lrs. & Ors. (2007) 15 
sec 629 - relied on. 
Case Law Reference 
2008 (5) SCR 839 
(2007) 15 sec 629 
relied on 
relied on 
Para 17 
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). 
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. 
H 
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 
NARAYANAPPA (D) BY LRS. v. B.S. RAMASWAMY (D) BY 
LRS. [MADAN B. LOKUR, J.) 
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 !st March, 1974 vested with the State Government free of 
all encumbrances. However, tenants in possession of land on the 
appointed date were entitled to seek registration of their occupancy 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.