CHANDRAVATHI Vs. N.SUBBAN SHIVA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This intra court appeal is filed assailing the order dtd. 16/3/2021 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.33277/2012.

(2.) We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and also perused the material available on record.

(3.) Facts leading to filing of this appeal briefly stated are, the mother of the appellant and her brother M.Nagesh namely respondent No.9 herein had filed two separate Form No.7 under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (for short "the Act, 1961") claiming occupancy rights of the lands mentioned therein. In Form No.7 filed by M.Nagesh, he had requested for granting occupancy rights in respect of land bearing survey No.108/1A while the mother of the appellant namely Smt. Oovamma had filed Form No.7 in respect of land bearing survey No.110/1, 108/1A, 110/6, 6/2C and 6/2A. Since the land bearing survey No.6/2C and 6/2A were situated in a different village, the claim in respect of said two items of land was transferred to another Tribunal while the claim in respect of other three items of the land which were situated in Kadri B Village was considered by the respondent/Tribunal and by order dtd. 14/10/1980, the Tribunal had granted occupancy rights of the land bearing Nos.108-1A1, 108-1A2, 110-6A of Kadri B Village in favour of the appellant's mother. Subsequently, in the year 2009, an application was filed by the legal representatives of late Oovamma contending that the Tribunal by mistake had granted occupancy rights of the land bearing survey 108-1A2 and 110-6A instead of 110/1 and accordingly had prayed to rectify the said mistake committed by the Tribunal. The said application was opposed by the landlords. The Tribunal by order dtd. 23/9/2011 allowed the said application and directed to carryout necessary correction in the order dtd. 14/10/1980 with regard to the survey number of the property. The said order dtd. 23/9/2011 was challenged by the landlords in W.P.No.33277/2012 which was allowed by the learned Single Judge of this Court vide order impugned and being aggrieved by the same, respondent No.4 in the said writ petition who is the daughter of Oovamma has filed this intra court appeal.