VIJAYA DEVI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NO orders are necessary on la. No. I. Since the ad interim stay was only for a period of 12 weeks from 10-11-1997 which period has since elapsed, the stay is therefore no longer in operation. As far as the main petition is concerned, I have heard the learned contesting counsel on both sides principally because once the stay is vacated, the question would arise as to whether anything survives in the main petition and whether it should be kept pending. In this case, on hearing the petitioner's learned advocate, i find that as far as the merits are concerned, that the court has, as of necessity, to examine the case. Two points are raised, the first being that there is no claim made in respect of sy. No. 200 and the second point is that the application for amendments increasing the area from 1. 30 acres to 4. 52 acres was made after the remand by the high court long after 30-6-1979. Petitioner's learned Advocate submits that unless the form 7 conforms to the requirements of law insofar as the column relating to survey number and the sub-division pot hissa number are set out, that the land cannot be specifically identified and that therefore, the application itself is not a valid application. He also submitted that the tribunal has totally disregarded the objections canvassed by the petitioner and that the order itself is liable to be quashed.

(2.) THE learned advocate who represents respondent 3 has put for ward an interesting submission. His plea is that if the claim put forward by the applicant is otherwise identifiable by the tribunal or the court as f he case may be, and if the opposite party is also able to identify the nature of the claim that the minor procedural lapse of non-mentioning of the survey number and the hissa number is curable. His added submission is that the court must consider the status of the parties most of whom were illiterate or semi-illiterate and the fact that in those years when the forms were filled up, that they did not have any legal assistance. His overall submission is that mere non-mentioning of the relevant particulars should not disqualify the applicant. I do concede that there is considerable substance in what has been pointed out insofar as the courts always make a lot of allowance having regard to the status of the parties but there are limits beyond which it is not permissible to carry the level of indulgence. The plain reason for it is because the courts have to guard against the many cases in which claims are false and the many cases in which the claims are excessive but more importantly, if the required description of the property claimed is not specific, it would lead to very dangerous consequences insofar as it would be impossible in many cases to pin the applicant down to a specific case. It is for this reason that the court will have to insist that the application must contain the bare necessities and in the absence thereof, that the form 7 would be invalid. In this case, only the area of the land is mentioned and the survey number and the hissa numbers are not set out and consequently, the objection canvassed by the petitioner's learned Advocate will have to be upheld.

(3.) AS regards the second point, in numerous instances amendmentsore sought to be carried out after the prescribed time limit has elapsed and the submission canvassed by the respondent's learned Advocate is that if the court is satisfied that an error or an omission has taken place, that it is well settled law that corrective action is always permitted. His submission is that the limitation prescribed for the original claim does not get varied if an amendment is asked for at a later point of time because the amendment dates back to the original proceeding. I am unable to accept this submission because an amendment to the claim alters it and in the given case for instance, almost three tunes the area of land is sought to be claimed through an amendment sought to be carried out in the year 1982 which the tribunal has permitted. The error becomes apparent if one were to analyse the consequences because in effect, the amended claim is for about 3 acres of additional land which the respondent 3 could not have claimed after 30-6-1979. It is a well settled principle of law that the law cannot permit indirectly what is not permitted to be done directly. It needs to be laid down therefore very clearly that under this statute where a cut-off date has been prescribed, no amendments can be permitted after the date in question and that if amendments are permitted, that they will be void to that extent.