Karnataka High Court
Doddamardansab Mohamadhaneefsab ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 15 October, 2024
Author: Pradeep Singh Yerur
Bench: Pradeep Singh Yerur
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:14968
WP No. 103788 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 103788 OF 2022 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
DODDAMARDANSAB MOHAMADHANEEFSAB NADAF,
(SINCE DECEASED BY LR'S)
1. KASIMSAB S/O. DODDAMARDANSAB NADAF,
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. NAREGAL, TQ: HANGAL, DT: HAVERI.
MOHAMADHANEEF S/O. SANNAMARDANSAB NADAF,
(SINCE DECEASED BY LR'S)
2. ALTAF S/O. MOHAMMADHANEEF NADAF,
AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. NAREGAL, TQ: HANGAL, DT: HAVERI.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. LAXMAN T. MANTAGANI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
MANJANNA 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
E
BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
Digitally signed by
MANJANNA E
VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE -560001.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
2. THE CHAIRMAN,
LAND TRIBUNAL HANGAL,
DT: HAVERI-581104.
IMAMSAB S/O. MAULASAB NADAF,
(SINCE DECEASED BY LR'S)
3. JAITUNBI W/O. IMAMSAB NADAF,
AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. NAREGAL, TQ: HANGAL, DT: HAVERI-581148.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:14968
WP No. 103788 of 2022
4. BASHASAB S/O. IMAMSAB NADAF,
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. NAREGAL, TQ: HANGAL, DT: HAVERI-581148.
5. HAJARESAB S/O. IMAMSAB NADAF,
AGE:40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. NAREGAL, TQ: HANGAL,
DT: HAVERI-581148.
6. SMT. ALLIBHU W/O. IMAMSAB NAREGAL,
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. BINGAPUR, TQ: HANGAL,
DT: HAVERI-581148.
7. SMT. SAIRABANU W/O. CHAMANSAB HATTIKAL,
AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. KARJAGI, TQ & DT: HAVERI-581112.
8. MARDANABI W/O. ALLISAB NADAF,
AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. SHIBARGATTI, TQ & DIST: DHARWAD-580001.
9. KHADARSAB S/O. MOULASAB NADAF,
AGE: 68 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. NAREGAL, TQ: HANGAL, DT: HAVERI-581148.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. V.S. KALASURMATH, HCGP FOR R1 & R2;
SRI. C.S. LAKKONDAR, ADV. FOR C/R3 TO C/R8;
V/O DATED 28/06/2023 NOTICE TO R9 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
a) ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT
NO.2 TO RECTIFY THE TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR CREPT IN THE
ORDER PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-C
DATED 29-04-2022 AS PER THE APPLICATION DATED 29-06-
2022 VIDE 'ANNEXURE-D' AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN
'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:14968
WP No. 103788 of 2022
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR)
1. This petition is filed by the petitioners seeking a writ of mandamus to consider the application and rectify the typographical error crept in the order passed by the respondent No.2 vide Annexure-C dated 29.04.2022 as per the application dated 29.06.2022 vide Annexure-D.
2. Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are the legal representatives of one deceased Doddamardansab Nadaf s/o Mohmadhaneef Nadaf. The deceased Doddamardansab and his five brothers were the tenants of land bearing Sy.No.441 measuring 9 acres, Sy.No.418/2 measuring 1 acre 10 guntas, Sy.No.418/4 measuring 3 acres 25 guntas and Sy.No.418/6 measuring 3 acres 24 guntas, Sy.No.418/8 measuring 0-31 guntas. Deceased Doddamardansab and his brothers filed Form No.7 claiming occupancy rights before the land tribunal on 13.08.1974. The 2nd applicant i.e., father of respondent Nos.3 to 7 filed Form No.7 claiming occupancy rights in -4- NC: 2024:KHC-D:14968 WP No. 103788 of 2022 respect of land bearing Sy.No.441 to an extent of 6 acres 6 guntas and Sy.No.418/4 measuring 3 acres 25 guntas. Along with the petitioners and the applicants, other tenants also filed Form No.7 claiming occupancy rights in the very same survey numbers seeking different extent of lands. The land tribunal clubbed all the applications, proceeded to grant occupancy rights to the extent claimed by each of the applicants including the petitioners.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there is a typographical error mentioned in the survey numbers, and also the extent of land while granting occupancy rights to the petitioner No.1 and typographical error has crept in respect of mentioning the extent of land as 8 acres as against the claim made by petitioners to an extent of 9 acres in Sy.No.441 so also against 1 acre 10 guntas in Sy.No.418/2 which is wrongly shown to the applicant No.2 instead of applicant No.1. It is further contended that though applicant No.1-Imamsab s/o Maulasab Nadaf did not make any claim over 1 acre 10 -5- NC: 2024:KHC-D:14968 WP No. 103788 of 2022 guntas in Sy.No.418/2 and also applicant No.2 to an extent of 6 guntas in Sy.No.441, there is a typographical error showing 7 acres 6 guntas in Sy.No.441. Therefore, it is contended by the learned counsel that the said typographical errors which are crept in, requires to be corrected by the land tribunal. Accordingly, petitioners made an application seeking correction of the typographical errors crept in while granting occupancy rights in respect of the above said lands.
4. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that taking advantage of the typographical error committed by the land tribunal while granting Form No.7-allotment of land, respondent Nos.3 to 7 have taken undue advantage of the said topographical error and they are trying to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land of the petitioners. It is further contended that though the application came to be filed as long back as on 29.06.2022, tribunal has not taken any action to rectify the typographical error crept in -6- NC: 2024:KHC-D:14968 WP No. 103788 of 2022 the order while granting the occupancy certificate. Hence, the present petition is filed by the petitioners seeking rectification of the extent of land in respect of the survey numbers to the petitioners.
5. It is also contended by the learned counsel that the rectification of extent is permissible as provided under proviso 1 and 2 of Section 48A (6) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, where it provides the tribunal to rectify any clerical or any arithmetic mistake on an application made or moved by either of the parties which shall be recorded in writing. So also the second proviso provides that the tribunal may on its own or on an application of the parties rectify or correct the extent of land after causing actual measurement and by giving opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties.
6. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently opposes the said submission put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioners, on the ground that the allotment has already been made way back in the -7- NC: 2024:KHC-D:14968 WP No. 103788 of 2022 year 2022, to each of the parties, so in case the rectification of the error as sought for is introduced, it would affect the rights of other parties to whom the extent of land is allotted to the respective survey numbers. Under the circumstances, he contends that the same is not permissible and it cannot be implemented without providing opportunity to others.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State. Though notice has been served through the caveator on record for respondent Nos.3 to 8, there is no representation on their behalf. In view of a specific provision provided under Section 48A (6) under proviso 1 and 2 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, there is a scope for the land tribunal to rectify its clerical or arithmetic mistake in the order passed by it or it has also got the powers to correct the extent of land in the order passed by it, after carefully analysing the application made under the actual extent of land on providing -8- NC: 2024:KHC-D:14968 WP No. 103788 of 2022 opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties. Under the circumstances, there is some force in the submissions put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioners as he has made an application for grant of land to the extent which is specified in Form No.7, which ought to have been considered, and if it is not, necessary findings or reasons to that extent ought to have been recorded by the tribunal by granting the extent of land. Under the circumstances, this petition would have to be favoured. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER i. Petition is allowed.
ii. Writ of mandamus is issued and a direction is given to respondent No.2 to rectify the typographical error, if any, crept in the order or in the alternative, to correct the extent of land allotted to the petitioners, if required, by providing suitable opportunity of hearing to the -9- NC: 2024:KHC-D:14968 WP No. 103788 of 2022 concerned parties and pass suitable orders in accordance with law, also dispose of the matter within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. iii. It is made clear that till the time such order is passed, the entries shall not be changed, if not already changed, as on today.
Sd/-
(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE KGK CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44