WA/1540/2025 of MR SUNDAR SHETTY Vs KAMALA SHEDTHI SINCE DEAD REPRESENTED BY LRS VAJARAKSHI B SHEDTHI on 23 April 2026

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF)

This intra Court appeal by unsuccessful petitioner in W.P.No.912/2022, challenging the order dated 22.07.2025 passed by the Writ Court. The Writ Court dismissed the writ petition declining to interfere in the order dated 22.10.2021

HC-KAR

passed by the Mangalore Taluka Land Tribunal, D.K.Mangaluru1.

2. The parties are referred to by their rankings before the Tribunal.

3. The facts germane to the file of this writ appeal are as under:

4. The petitioner was before the Writ Court seeking for the following reliefs: "i. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction quashing the order dated 22.10.2021 passed by the Mangalore Taluka Land Tribunal, Dakshina Kannada, in the case LRT:1038:78-79 and 1109:78-79 (Annexure-M) and

ii. Direct the 1st respondent to pay costs of this petition."

5. It is the claim of the petitioner that, father of the petitioner had a Chalageni holding in respect of subject land which he was cultivating. He had filed Form No.7, seeking occupancy rights over the land (Annexure-A). The land claimed under Form No.7 along with other properties also in Sy.No.35/2 to an extent of 0.80 cents, by order dated 1 'Land Tribunal'

HC-KAR

01.10.1981, the Tribunal had granted occupancy rights with respect to Sy.No.35/2 to an extent of 0.25 cents, with rights in other lands.

6. Thereafter, after lapse of several years, Form No.7A came to be filed by the petitioner in respect of remaining extent of land of 0.80 cents claimed under Form-7 in Sy.No.35/2 i.e., to an extent of 0.55 cents. The application came to be rejected by the Authority. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application under Section 48A(6) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 19612 claiming that the mistake crept in the order of the Land Tribunal dated 01.10.1981 may be corrected and the extent of land may be corrected from 0.25 cents to 0.80 cents. The application came to be rejected by the Land Tribunal vide order dated 22.10.2021. Against the order of rejection of application filed under Section 48A(6) of KLRA, the petitioner was before the Writ Court.

7. Before the Writ Court, it was contented that there was no impediment for the Land Tribunal to correct the mistake in the order by making the extent of land 0.80 cents instead of 2 KLRA

HC-KAR

0.25 cents. It was further contented that the petitioner is in cultivation of the entire extent of 0.80 cents of land. The petitioner relying on the judgment of this Court in Gangamma and Another Vs. Tahsildar and others3, to contend that the Land Tribunal has jurisdiction to make necessary typographical corrections in its earlier order and such correction was essential to consider the petitioner's claim for the extent of 0.80 cents as originally claimed by the father of the petitioner.

8. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 referring to provision under Section 48A(6) of the KLRA submitted that what is provided in the said provision is to make necessary corrections if any, in cases of typographical or clerical or arithmetical mistakes, since the original order passed by the Land Tribunal at Annexure-F, dated 01.10.1981, conferring the occupancy rights to an extent of 0.25 cents has reached finality, in favour of father of the petitioner, the same cannot now sought to be corrected under the garb of typographical or clerical or arithmetical mistakes and sought to dismiss the petition.

3 ILR 2005 KAR 4852

HC-KAR

9. Learned Additional Government Advocate argued in toe with respondent No.2.

10. The learned Single Judge having considered the provision under Section 48A(6) of the KLRA and the language used in the said provision extracted the same in paragraph No.16 of the judgment and relying on the judgment of this Court in H.B.Shingappa Gowda Vs. Land Reforms Tribunal and others in W.A.No.205/1977 dated 18.08.1977 reported in AIR 1977 KAR 218, holding that the Land Tribunal under Section 48A(6) of the KLRA has no right to review or recall its own order, dismissed the writ petition, declining to accept the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is this order called in question in this writ appeal.

11. Heard Madam Meghana Ballal, learned counsel appearing for Sri.Akash B. Shetty, learned counsel for the appellant, Sr.B.Roopesha, learned counsel for Caveator/respondent No.2 and Sr.M.N.Sudev Hegde, learned Additional Government Advocate for R3 and R4.

HC-KAR

12. Madam Megana Ballal more or less argued reiterating the very same contentions urged before the Writ Court, that the learned single judge having considered the scope of 48A(6) of the KLRA, especially the proviso appended thereto and relying on the judgment of the Co-ordinate bench of this Court in H.B.Shingappa Gowda supra, declined to accept the contentions that the request sought in the application was just typographical or clerical or arithmetical mistakes. It is not in dispute that the Land Tribunal on 01.10.1981 passed the order vide Annexure-F, granting occupancy rights. After going through the entire documents placed on record, the order still remained in force, as no challenge laid to the said order and the same has attained finality. Now in the garb of the typographical or clerical or arithmetical mistakes under Section 48A(6), the application filed cannot be maintained. The Tribunal having considered the materials placed on record passed the order conferring the occupancy rights to the extent the claimant entitled in law, a challenge made after nearly 4 decades, besides unsuccessful in his attempt under Section 77A of KLRA, now under the application under Section 48A(6) of KLRA claims to be

HC-KAR

innocuous cannot be countenanced. What is provided is only typographical or clerical or arithmetical mistakes crept in the order and not a jurisdiction to review the order passed earlier.

13. In that view of the matter, we see no infirmities in the order passed by the Writ Court. The Writ Appeal sans merit and accordingly, dismissed.

In view of dismissal of the appeal, pending applications if any, does not survive for consideration and the same stands disposed of.

Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE

Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE

RR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2 ct-vn