CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 685 of 2008 PETITIONER: ASHOK & ANR. RESPONDENT: ALBUQUERQUE HOTELS (P) LTD. & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 25/01/2008 BENCH: P.P. Naolekar & Lokeshwar Singh Panta JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT
O R D E R
[ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO.12516 OF 2005]
1. Leave granted.
2. On 24.12.1974, the predecessor of the appellants applied for occupancy right
under Section 48A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (in short the Act) in
respect of Survey No.147/1A. When the matter came before the Land Tribunal, it
was submitted by the predecessor of the appellants that in fact he had moved an
application for occupancy right with regard to Khasra No.139/6-D. The Land
Tribunal accepted the oral prayer made by the predecessor of the appellants and by
its order dated 26.9.1981 granted occupancy rights to the predecessor of the
appellants in respect of Survey No.139/6D.
3. Aggrieved by the said order, Respondent No.1 filed a Writ Petition before the
High Court of Karnataka challenging the said order of the Land Tribunal dated
26.9.1981. The learned Single Judge by his order dated 13.3.2002 allowed the said
writ petition and set aside the order of the Land Tribunal. The learned Single Judge
proceeded on the basis that there was no application for correction of the mistake in
respect of survey number in the application and therefore the Land Tribunal had no
jurisdiction to grant occupancy rights in respect of a survey number other than the
one prayed for. The High Court held that the application moved by the predecessor
of the appellants on 24.12.1974 was not amended and the occupancy right claimed by
the appellant remained for Survey No.147/1A and not for 139/6D and thus the Land
Tribunal committed an error in giving the occupancy right over the land which was
not the subject matter of an application moved by the predecessor of the appellants.
4. The Division Bench has confirmed the order of the learned Single Judge. The
Division Bench has held that there was no application for amendment and there was
no order allowing any such application and therefore the order of the learned Single
Judge was correct.
5. The learned counsel for the appellants could not show us any application moved
for amendment of the form claiming occupancy right wherein Survey No.147/1A was
substituted by Survey No.139/6D. The Land Tribunal was not right in giving the
occupancy right in respect of the land which was not the subject matter of an
application moved by the predecessor of the appellants. The Land Tribunal had no
authority to give occupancy right of a land which was not applied for. If the Land
Tribunal confers occupancy rights for a land which was not mentioned in the form,
the owner of that land who has a right to oppose the conferral of the occupancy right
in that land has no such opportunity.
6. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the
Division Bench of the High Court. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.