Land Tribunals Cannot Review Occupancy-Rights Orders Beyond Statutorily Permitted Corrections.

The petitioners’ predecessor, Smt. Bharamavva, was granted occupancy rights over 6 acres 23 guntas in Survey No. 28, Akkivalli Village, by the Land Tribunal on 27 February 1979.

In 2017, the President of the School Development and Monitoring Committee (SDMC) applied to the Tribunal to reconsider that order. The Tribunal revived the proceedings, stating that it was doing so “in public interest.” The petitioners challenged the revival before the High Court.

1. Whether the Land Tribunal could review or reconsider its final order granting occupancy rights under Section 48-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, outside the statutory powers of correction.

2. Whether the Tribunal could revive the 1979 proceedings in 2017 on the application of a third party, on the stated ground of “public interest.”

Section 48-A(6) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 makes the Tribunal’s order final, while its provisos permit only limited corrections: clerical or arithmetical mistakes and, after measurement and hearing affected parties, the extent of land. They do not confer a power of review or reconsideration.

The Court relied on Smt. Nirmala Shedthy v. The Land Tribunal, W.P. No. 21099/2012 (11 October 2013), which followed Shingappa Gowda H.B. v. Land Reforms Tribunal, Sringeri (1977 (2) KLJ 312) and Admar Mutt v. Rama Shetty (2006 (3) KCCR 1659), for the rule that a Tribunal cannot recall or review its earlier order beyond the corrections authorised by Section 48-A(6).

The Tribunal’s 1979 order granting occupancy rights was final under Section 48-A(6). The 2017 proceedings were initiated not to correct a clerical or arithmetical error or the extent of land, but to reconsider the merits of the grant following an application by a third party.

Describing the reconsideration as being in “public interest” could not supply a review power that the statute did not confer, particularly after approximately 38 years. The revival therefore exceeded the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

It allowed the writ petition and quashed the Tribunal’s revival proceedings in LRMSR No. 2 of 1979, identified as Annexure-E. No order as to costs.