Doddaiah Vs. T.N. Siddalingappa (D) by LRs & Anr.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 5559 of 2000
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 5370 of 2000)
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 5370 of 2000)
Petitioner: Doddaiah
Respondent: T.N. Siddalingappa (D) by LRs & Anr.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 5559 of 2000
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 5370 of 2000)
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 5370 of 2000)
Judges: K.T. THOMAS & R.P. SETHI, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Sep 28, 2000
Head Note:
LAND REFORMS
Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961
Section 48 (A)(iii) – Application for occupancy right filed by appellant – Subsequent application for amendment allowed by Land Tribunal – Decision reversed by appellate authority – Revision dismissed by High Court – Whether Tribunal has power to allow amendment of application. Held, under the 1961 Act, Tribunal has such power. Order of the High Court set aside and matter remitted to High Court for fresh disposal.
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. Appellant applied for occupancy right in respect of the cer-tain land and the application was filed before the Land Tribunal concerned within the prescribed time. When appellant discovered some mistakes in accordance with the description of the land, he applied for and got those mistakes corrected. The Land Tribunal granted the occupancy right prayed for, but the appellate author-ity reversed the decision and dismissed the claim made by the appellant. A revision was filed before the High Court against the order of the appellate authority. Now, that revision stands dismissed by the impugned order rendered by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Karnataka.
3. The only ground which the learned Single Judge appears to have considered is regarding the power of the Tribunal to grant amendment of the application. The view of the learned Single Judge was that the Tribunal had no such power.
4. Learned Counsel for the appellant invited our attention to Section 48 (A)(iii) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. It reads thus:
“The form of the application, the form of the notices, the manner of publishing or serving the notices and all other matters con-nected therewith shall be such as may be prescribed. (The Tribun-al may for valid and sufficient reasons permit the tenant to amend the application).”
5. What is incorporated in parenthesis would clearly spell out that the Tribunal has the power to allow amendment of the appli-cation. Apparently the High Court has overlooked the said limb of the Sub-section. Hence the conclusion reached by the High Court is unsupportable.
6. We have noticed that the High Court has not adverted to any other contentions or grounds raised by the appellant in the revision petition. As the revision was dismissed only on the abovesaid ground, we deem it necessary that the High Court must dispose of the revision petition afresh on merits. The applica-tion should be treated as it was amended subsequently.
7. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order of the High Court and remit the revision to the High Court for disposal afresh in accordance with law.
8. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
1. Leave granted.
2. Appellant applied for occupancy right in respect of the cer-tain land and the application was filed before the Land Tribunal concerned within the prescribed time. When appellant discovered some mistakes in accordance with the description of the land, he applied for and got those mistakes corrected. The Land Tribunal granted the occupancy right prayed for, but the appellate author-ity reversed the decision and dismissed the claim made by the appellant. A revision was filed before the High Court against the order of the appellate authority. Now, that revision stands dismissed by the impugned order rendered by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Karnataka.
3. The only ground which the learned Single Judge appears to have considered is regarding the power of the Tribunal to grant amendment of the application. The view of the learned Single Judge was that the Tribunal had no such power.
4. Learned Counsel for the appellant invited our attention to Section 48 (A)(iii) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. It reads thus:
“The form of the application, the form of the notices, the manner of publishing or serving the notices and all other matters con-nected therewith shall be such as may be prescribed. (The Tribun-al may for valid and sufficient reasons permit the tenant to amend the application).”
5. What is incorporated in parenthesis would clearly spell out that the Tribunal has the power to allow amendment of the appli-cation. Apparently the High Court has overlooked the said limb of the Sub-section. Hence the conclusion reached by the High Court is unsupportable.
6. We have noticed that the High Court has not adverted to any other contentions or grounds raised by the appellant in the revision petition. As the revision was dismissed only on the abovesaid ground, we deem it necessary that the High Court must dispose of the revision petition afresh on merits. The applica-tion should be treated as it was amended subsequently.
7. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order of the High Court and remit the revision to the High Court for disposal afresh in accordance with law.
8. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
