http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 1  

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 \023the Act\024) 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.