NAGARAJU S/O LATE GANGAIAH Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPT. OF REVENUE DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD BANGALORE - 560001, THE LAND TRIBUNAL TUMKUR REP BY ITS SECRETARY AND THE ASST. COMMISSIONER TUMKUR SUB-DIVISION TUMKUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant appears to have an imaginary problem on the premise that the order dated 15.9.1931 passed by the Land Tribunal, Tumkur suffers from an arithmetical error in so far as it concerns the total extent of land in respect of which occupancy rights had been conferred amongst many applicants before it, inclusive of the present appellant. Submission of Sri. Abhinav, learned counsel for the appellant is that while an extent of 1 acre 20 guntas of land in Sy. No. 66 of Hittaganahalli Village, Gullur Hobli, Tumkur Taluk had been rightly registered in the name of the appellant recognising his tenancy rights in respect of this land. While adding the individual extents of lands in respect of which occupancy rights, have been conferred on other applicants, the sum total has been wrongly indicated and such incorrect summing up of the extents of land given to different tenants has been causing problems to the appellant by shifting the location of the land periodically, etc.

(2.) IT appears that the appellant had filed an application under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 25 of the Land Revenue Act on 14.9.2010 for correction of this arithmetical error. But, that application having been rejected by the Tribunal, writ petition was filed but the writ petition has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge holding that the Tribunal has no such power. Hence, the present appeal is filed.

(3.) SRI . Abhinav, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal has such power and therefore, the learned Single Judge is not right in dismissing the writ petition on the ground that the Tribunal has no such power. We do not find any need to interfere in the matter. Particularly, when we do not find any possible way of correcting the order of the Tribunal said to be suffering from arithmetical error, if, in so far as the appellant is concerned, the extent of land conferred in his favour is possessed and there is no reduction or subtraction from that extent or if the appellant is facing any practical difficulties in the land, it is for him to find other remedies. We find no justification to interfere with the order of the Tribunal.