ORDER
Chidananda Ullal, J.
1. These two Writ Petitions are registered on receipt of the case records in the two appeals in LRAA 182/87 and LRAA 187/87 by the Registry when the said appeals stood transferred to this Court on abolition of the Additional Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Puttur. In the said two appeals, the common order dated 13.11.87 passed in case No. LRY.694/74-75 by the respondent No. 2 - Land Tribunal, Sullia granting occupancy right to the contesting respondent No. 1 herein in part of the claim. When the first appeal is by the tenant to challenge the impugned order in so far as the same related to rejection of the claim, the other appeal is by the landlord in so far as the same related to grant of occupancy right.
2. I heard the Learned Counsel Sri S.S. Sripathy and Sri K. Krishna Bhat appearing for the petitioners in the petition and counter petition respectively (They also represent the contesting respondent in the respective petitions). The learned High Court Government Pleader Sri S.S. Guttal represents the Land Tribunal and the State in both the petitioner. I have also perused the case records.
3. The parties are adverted to here below as they appear in the first Writ Petition, for convenience.
4. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner in the first Writ Petition submitted that in view of the petition and counter petition, it is relevant to set out the facts of the case. The same are as hereunder:
That the petitioner had filed Form No. 7 on 19.8.74 claiming occupancy right in respect of 1 acre 20 guntas in Sy.No. 115/3 in Balpa village of Sullia t'aluk. That immediately thereafter, survey was held by the Land Tribunal and it is found that the petitioner was having possession of 79 cents of land in Sy.No. 115/3 and 53 cents of land in Sy.No. 116/5(b) of Balpa village. That thereafter, the petitioner had filed an application to amend his Form No. 7 to amend his claim as 1 acre 28 gunthas in Sy.No. 115/3(a) and 53 cents in Sy.No. 115/5(b) and it is thereafter by setting the date of appearance of the parties on 30.11,79, the Land Tribunal had issued the notices to the petitioner as well as the contesting respondent No. 1 showing the claim of the petitioner as amended as above and it is thereafter, at the first instance, the petitioner was granted with occupancy right in respect of 1 acre 28 cents in Sy.No. 115/3{a) and 53 cents in Sy.No. 116/5(b) by the Land Tribunal by its order dated 29.1.80. As against the above order, the contesting respondent No. 1 had filed Writ Petition in No. 22270/80 to challenge the same and this Court while allowing the said Writ Petition on 11.7.84, quashed the said order of the Land Tribunal and further directed the Land Tribunal for holding fresh enquiry in compliance with the requirement of Rule 17 of the Land Reforms Rules. It is thereafter the Land Tribunal held fresh enquiry and granted the occupancy right in respect of 79 cents in Sy.No. 115/3{a) and 53 cents in Sy.No. 116/5(b) and the said order is now under challenge before this Court in the hands of both the petitioner as well as in the hands of the contesting respondent No. 1.
5. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri S.S. Sripathy argued that there was no good reason for the Land Tribunal in not granting the entire extent of 1 acre 28 cents in Sy.No. 115/3(a) as claimed by the petitioner by amending his claim as above. According to Sri Sripathy, the amendment allowed by the land Tribunal was in the interest of justice, for the same was resorted to by the petitioner only to correct the original claim made by the petitioner in his Form No.7.
6. In reply to the contention of the contesting respondent No. 1 in the connected Writ Petition that the land Tribunal would not have allowed to amend the claim of the petitioner in so far as the same related to the grant of occupancy right in respect of 53 cents in Sy.No. 116/1(b) on the ground that the said item of land was not at all claimed by the petitioner in filing Form No. 7 the first instance and as such, the said claim was nothing but an enlargement of the original claim, Sri Sripathy firstly submitted that there is no substance in the said contention advanced by the contesting respondent when the proceedings at the very inception was with issue of notices to the parties based on the amended claim and secondly that the amendment was resorted to by the petitioner only to correct the survey number and nothing beyond and thirdly that even according to the petitioner as well as the contesting respondent No. 1, the petitioner is having his house and the appurtenant land around the house and measuring 53 cents in Sy.No. 116/5(b).
7. Therefore Sri Sripathy prayed that the First Writ petition filed by his party be allowed while rejecting the second Writ Petition filed by the other side. Sri Sirpathy had relied upon unreported decisions of this Court in W.P.No. 21233/92 disposed of on 22.7.96 and W.P.No. 8717/89 disposed of on 26.2.91 in support of his argument.
8. As against the above argument advanced, Sri Krishna Bhat on the other hand argued that when the contesting respondent had conceded the case of the petitioner only to the extent of 60 cents of the land in Sy.No. 115/3, there was no justification for the Land Tribunal to grant 79 cents in the said survey number. He, further with vehemence argued that there was no justification on the part of the land Tribunal to grant 53 cents in the other Sy.No. 116/5(b) as the said part off the claim was totally foreign to the original claim of the petitioner in Form No. 7. While adverting to the Form No. 7 filed by the petitioner, Sri Krishna Bhat submitted that the petitioner in filing the Form No. 7 at the first instance had claimed only 1 acre 20gunthas in Sy.No. 115/3 and as such in allowing the-amendment there was enlargement in the claim of the petitioner in respect of 1 acre 28 gunthas in Sy.No. 115/3 and further to add yet another item of 53 cents in Sy.No. 116/5fb) and as such according to Sri Krishna Bhat the same is totally illegal and further more opposed to the law laid down by this Court. In support of such an argument, Sri Krishna Bhat had also cited before me the following decisions:
1. : ILR1986KAR1574 , Krishna Bhat v. Land Tribunal Bentwal
2. : ILR1987KAR1779 ,. Seethadevi v. Narayana Kamath
3. : ILR1994KAR809 ,. Pakeera Moolya v. Man Bhat
4. : ILR1990KAR369 , R. Krishnaswamy Rao v. Lakshmaiah Setty
He had also cited before me an unreported decision of this Court in W.P.NO. 2940/77 disposed of on 25.11.82. Therefore Sri Krishna Bhat prayed that the impugned order granting occupancy right in so far as the same related beyond what was conceded to by the respondent No. 1 before the Land Tribunal be quashed or in other words what he had prayed for is to restrict the claim of the petitioner only to 60 cents of land in Sy.No. 115/3(a).
9. In the above facts and circumstances the points for my consideration are as follows:-
(i) Whether it was just and proper for the Land Tribunal to permit the petitioner to amend his original claim in Form No. 7 by allowing his application for amendment to amend his claim.
(ii) whether the impugned orders in the instant two Writ petition are just and proper and whether the same is in any way called for to be interfered with.
10. Now I proceed to consider the above two points in the above order.
Regarding point No. 1 : The petitioner had filed Form No. 7 on 19.8.74 claiming occupancy right in respect of 1 acre 20 cents in Sy.No. 115/3 of Balpa village and immediately thereafter the Tribunal had conducted a survey and it appeared from the said survey that the part of the land claimed by the petitioner was also lying in Sy.No. 116/5(b) to an extent of 53 cents and the petitioner thereafter filed an application on 18.6.80 to amend his claim to say that his claim was in respect of 1 acre 28 cents in Sy.No. 115/3(a) and 53 cents in Sy.No. 116/5(b) and accordingly, notices were issued to the petitioner as well as the respondent No. l for holding an enquiry in respect of the said amended claim and finally by passing an order on 21.8.90, the Land Tribunal had granted occupancy right to the above two extents of land. That the same was challenged by the contesting respondent No. 1 in W.P.No. 22270/80 and this Court while allowing the said W.P. on 11.7.84 directed the Tribunal to hold de novo enquiry. In the said second enquiry, the respondent No. 1 had also conceded the claim of the petitioner by deposing before the Tribunal that the house in Sy.No. 116/5(b) was also given to the petitioner along with part of the land as deposed by him before the Land Tribunal. It is conspicuous to note that in the survey report the Land Tribunal had verified that the petitioner was cultivating only 79 cents of land in Sy.No. 115/3(a), when part of land to an extent of 53 cents in Sy.No. 116/5(b) was the house portion under occupation of the petitioner. When the petitioner originally claimed 1 acre 20 cents in Sy.No. 115/3. In this context, I have to state that in the earlier Writ petition, W.P.No. 22270/80, the respondent No. 1 had stated in para 4 of the Writ Petition that in so far as Sy.No. 115/3 was concerned, the name of the petitioner was found in possession of 79 cents of land as per the entries in RTC. The same is verified by me in the case records of the said W.P. disposed of on 11.7.84. Hence, it appears to me that what the petition had set out originally in form No. 7 was the extent of land wherein his house was also situated and it is for that reason in his Form No. 7 he had stated that he claimed 1 acre 20 cents in Sy.No. 115/3. If we sum up the extent of 53 cents in Sy.No. 116/5(b) wherein his house is situated and 79 cents of land what is granted to the petitioner in passing the impugned order by the land Tribunal in Sy.No. 115/3(a), the same total up to 1 acre 32 cents. It therefore appears to me that the petitioner had filed an amendment application only to stretch hisclaim also in respect of the extent of land in Sy.No. 116/5(b) where his house is situated, if we take the totality of circumstances, it cannot be said that the petitioner had filed the amendment application to enlarge his claim in the second survey number i.e. Sy.No. 116/5(b). In the Division Bench ruling of this Court reported in : ILR1990KAR369 , the Division Bench of this Court held that the amendment sought for should not be considered when the amendment was to expand the claim of the applicant in Form No. 7 and to make a fresh claim in respect of the same survey number. However, in the said decision the Division Bench further held that, a statute dealing with the affecting the proprietary right of a citizen in a property should be strictly construed; but at the same time care should be taken to ensure that the interpretation does not result in miscarriage of justice and does not defeat or tend to defeat the object and intendment of the statute. In the instant case in hand, it therefore appears to me that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Land Tribunal had allowed the amendment only in the right spirit and proper perspective, not to cause miscarriage of justice to the petitioner.
11. In that view of the matter, I feel that the amendment allowed by the Land Tribunal to include the portion of the land in Sy.No. 116/ 5(b) where the house (admittedly given to the petitioner by the respondent No. 1) is situated, was just and proper to do justice to the parties before it. Even otherwise under Sub-section (3) of Section 48A of the Land Reforms Act, it is provided therein that the Tribunal may for valid and sufficient reasons permit the tenant to amend the application. Hence, I answer the point No. 1 in the affirmative and in favour of the petitioner.
12. Regarding point No. 2: As pointed out by me as above, the respondent No. 1 while filling W.P.No. 22270/80 himself had contended that as per the pahani entries, 79 cents of land in Sy.No. 115/3 was cultivated by the petitioner himself. The Land Tribunal too by holding a survey had found that the said extent of 79 cents was cultivated by the petitioner in the said survey number. As a matter of fact it is the said extent that was granted by the Land Tribunal in passing the impugned order in so far as the same related to Sy.No. 115/3(a). In addition to the above, the Land Tribunal has also granted 53 cents of land in Sy.No. 116/5(b) where the house of the petitioner was situated. In the evidence of the petitioner before the LandTribunal, he had deposed that the said part of land is also under his occupation where his residential house is situated. The said piece of evidence before the Land Tribunal had also not been challenged by the respondent No. 1 because the respondent No. 1 did not choose to cross examine the petitioner before the Land Tribunal; let apart, even in his own evidence, before the Land Tribunal, the respondent No. 1 had deposed that in addition to the land in Sy.No. 115/3, a house situated in Sy.No. 116/5(b) was also given to the petitioner. If that is the evidence borne on record it cannot be said that the impugned order passed by the land Tribunal in granting occupancy right in respect of 79 cents in Sy.No. 115/3(a) and 53 cents in Sy.No. 116/5(b) be in any way erroneous and called for, for an interference by this Court in the instant Writ Petitions. Hence, in my considered view there is nothing for both the sides to have any grievance as against the impugned order.
13. Hence, I do not find any merit in both the Writ Petitions filed by the petitioner on the one side and the contesting respondent No. 1 on the other.
14. In view of the above conclusions I reached, I do not find any necessity to advert to the other decisions relied upon by the respective side.
15. In the result, both the Writ Petitions fail and accordingly dismissed.