Supreme Court

Narayanappa (D) by L.Rs. v. B.S. Ramaswamy (D) by L.Rs. and Ors.

MANU/SC/0876/2016

08.08.2016

Property

Tribunal could only correct clerical or arithmetical errors after adjudication

In present case, Appellant claimed occupancy rights in the land by filing an application in Form 7 under Karnataka Land Reforms Rules, 1974 and invoking the provisions of Section 48A of the Act

According to Section 48A of Act, 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.

Supreme Court held that, Tribunal having adjudicated upon the application, it could only correct clerical or arithmetical errors as permitted by Section 48A of the Act. Amendment sought by Narayanappa was not in nature of a clerical or arithmetical error. Narayanappa sought change in the survey number, 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. Tribunal’s order 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 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. While dismissing the appeal, Supreme Court observed that, 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.

Relevant

Section 48A of  Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961

Tags : Land Occupancy rights Amendment Permissibility

Share :