Karnataka High Court
Sri.I.R.Shekar Shetty vs State Of Karnataka on 18 February, 2016
Author: Anand Byrareddy
Bench: Anand Byrareddy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2016
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
WRIT PETITION No.18340 OF 2015 (LR)
BETWEEN:
1. Sri. I.R.Shekar Shetty,
Aged about 71 years,
2. Sri. Kushala Shetty,
Aged about 57 years,
3. Sri. Bhoopathi Shetty,
Aged about 53 years,
4. Smt. Harini Shetty,
Aged about 64 years,
5. Smt. Sarojini Shetty,
Aged about 61 years,
6. Smt. Mamatha Shetty,
Aged about 50 years,
7. Sri. Ravindra Shetty,
Aged about 69 years,
Petitioners 3 to 7 are
2
Represented by their General
Power of Attorney Holder,
Sri. I.R.Shekar Shetty,
"Indrani Krupa",
Post Kunjibettu (V),
Udupi 566 102.
...PETITIONERS
(By Shri K. Chandranath Ariga, Advocate)
AND:
1. State of Karnataka,
By its Secretary,
Revenue Department,
Vikasa Soudha,
Dr. Ambedkar Road,
Bangalore 560 001.
2. The Chairman,
Land Tribunal,
Udupi 576 102.
3. Sri. Admar Mutt,
Represented by its
Matadhipathi'his Holiness
Sri Sri Vibhudesha Theertha Swamier,
Udupi 576 101.
4. Mrs. Sulochana Shetty,
Aged about 73 years,
Daughter of Late Subraya Shetty,
5. Mr. Bhaskar Shetty,
Aged about 50 years,
3
6. Mr. Vasudeva Shetty,
Aged about 68 years,
7. Mrs. Jyothi Shetty,
Aged about 26 years,
8. Mr. Dinesh Shetty,
Aged about 28 years,
9. Mr. Anand Shetty,
Aged about 55 years,
10. Mrs. Leela S Shetty,
Aged about 55 years,
Wife of Late Sridhar Shetty,
11. Mr. Chetan Shetty,
Aged about 30 years,
12. Mrs. Baby Shetty,
Aged about 62 years,
Respondent Nos. 5 to 9,
11 and 12 are children of
Late Sri. Sridhar Shetty,
Respondents 4 to 12 are
Residents of Indraly House,
Near Indraly Temple,
Indraly,
Post: Manchi 576 102,
Udupi.
...RESPONDENTS
4
(By Smt. B.P.Radha, Government Pleader for Respondent Nos.
1 and 2)
*****
This Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India praying to quash the endorsement dated
26.2.2015 vide Annexure-F and to direct the second respondent
to consider the application dated 3.11.2014 (Annexure-D) and
the application dated 24.12.2014 (Annexure-E).
This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing,
this day, the court made the following:
ORDER
The petition coming on for preliminary hearing, is considered for final disposal.
2. Heard the learned Government Advocate. The learned Government Advocate would point out that the petitioners are seeking correction of the order of the Land Tribunal, which has been denied by the Tribunal.
3. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there is no impediment for the Land Tribunal to carry out the correction, since in fact Section 48-A(6) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 does provide that on an 5 application, the Tribunal would be in a position to carry out correction of clerical or arithmetical mistakes committed in the order passed by it.
It is stated that the petitioners had indicated the correct survey numbers of the land in respect of which they were claiming occupancy rights. However, the Tribunal has committed an error in its order, which they had sought for correction. The copies of the application originally filed are produced along with the petitions.
4. The learned Government Advocate would point out that it may not be possible to ascertain whether there was indeed any such mistake which has occasioned and whether the petitioner had correctly indicated the survey numbers in the original application form and therefore, would seek time to obtain the records.
5. It would not be necessary to go through the said exercise. If the Tribunal itself should examine the application originally made by the petitioners and carry out the correction 6 which the law provides for, the petitioners' grievance would be addressed. The Tribunal has however incorrectly stated that there is no provision of law to carry out correction of clerical and arithmetical errors.
Accordingly, the Tribunal is directed to verify from the original records as to whether such a mistake has occasioned, and carry out the correction in the order, as prayed for by the petitioners. Accordingly, the petitions stand disposed of.
The learned Government Advocate is permitted to file memo of appearance within two weeks.
Sd/-
JUDGE KS