BOPANNA, J. ( 1 ) WRIT Petition No. 9849/1982 was disposed of by me along with Writ Petition Nos. 4348/82 and 9850/82 by a eommon order dated 4-11-1983. I had allowed these petitions and quashed the impugned orders of the Land Tribunal conferring occupancy rights on respondents-3 and 5 in w. P. No. 9850/82. As regards the claim of respondent No. 4 in W. P. No. 9848/82, I had quashed the impugned order since he had not made any applications in Form No. 7 in so far as it related to land bearing Sy. No. 19/7 of Balkur village, Honnavar Taluk, Uttara Kannada district. Respondent No. 4 is the petitioner herein and he is aggrieved by my order in so far as it relates to him as regards Sy. No. 19/7 measuring 20 guntas of land. His claim before the Land tribunal was 1 acre of land. In support of this civil Petition, respondent No. 4 who is the petitioner herein has produced the postal acknowledgment card issued by the postal authorities bearing the seal of the Special tahsildar, Honnavar and the rubber stamp seal bearing the date 30th of June, 1979 and a copy of form No. 7 said to have been filed by him on 29-6-1979, which according to him, was sent by registered post to the Special Tahsildar, honnavar. When the Civil Petition camc-up for admission, it was found that in the connected government records in the possession of the government Pleader, who was assigned this case, two pages were missing and therefore I made an order directing the Special Tahsildar who is allcged to have received the application of the petitioner on 30-6-1979 to file an affidavit in this court stating the circumstances under which form No. 7 dated 29-6-1979 was received by him and whether the said form was placed in the records of the Land Tribunal after making the necessary entries in the register maintained by the Land Tribunal for receiving the applications filed by the tenants in Form No. 7. The Special tahsildar was directed to submit his report within four weeks from that date (1-8-1984 ). The Special tahsildar was directed to submit his report within four weeks from that date (1-8-1984 ). By another order dated 20th of November, 1985, I directed the Administrative Officer of the advocate General's Office to "hold a departmental enquiry by examining the concerned Clerk prabhakar who had taken inspection of the records, the Special Tahsildar who has referred to this incident in his affidavit filed before this Court and the Tahsildar who was attached to the Office of the Land Tribunal at the time the petitioner sent his letter dated 29-6-1979 by Registered Post acknowledgment due, which was received by the tahsildar on 30-6-1979. Further, the Tahsildar who was attached to the Office of the Land tribunal on 19-11-1981, on which date the aforesaid letter was alleged to have been received by the Office of the Land Tribunal should also be examined. The Administrative Officer shall contact the Revenue Department and get the addresses of these officials and ask them to be present before him on or before 5th of december, 1985. He shall record their statements not only as regards the missing document but also as regards any other fact within their knowledge regarding the letter sent by the petitioner on 29-7-1979 by registered post". Further in para-3, I directed the Additional Registrar of this Office "to take custody of the original records of the proceedings as also the parawise remarks furnished by the Tahsildar dated 12-9-1984. He shall deliver the same to the Administrative officer of the Office of the Advocate General, after making an inventory of all the documents on record. The six enclosures in the sealed cover which was opened today by the Court-Officer shall be put back in a fresh cover, be sealed and kept in the safe custody of the additional registrar of this Court. " Accordingly, the administrative Officer of the Advocate General's office has held a departmental enquiry and submitted his report. He has also filed the affidavit of the Special Tahsildar regarding the filing of form No. 7 filed by the petitioner which was said to have been sent by registered post on 30-6-1979. " Accordingly, the administrative Officer of the Advocate General's office has held a departmental enquiry and submitted his report. He has also filed the affidavit of the Special Tahsildar regarding the filing of form No. 7 filed by the petitioner which was said to have been sent by registered post on 30-6-1979. This Civil Petition has to be disposed of on the basis of the statements recorded by the Administrative officer in the enquiry held by him, in the light of the report submitted by him and in the light of the affidavit filed by the Special tahsildar pursuant to the earlier order made by me on 1-8-1984. In the report submitted by the Administrative Officer he has come to the following conclusions:"i) No Form No. 7 application has been filed by Sri Vitoba Ganapathi Nayak on 30-6-1979; ii) The Form No. 7 application dated 30-6-1979 now available in the records of the Land Tribunal, Honnavar, is at best an insertion at a later stage in the file. iii) It is difficult to fix the responsibility and to ascertain at what stage and who exactly has torn off the missing page 37 - 38 in the records of the Land tribunal. "the contents of these missing pages are not known cither to the petitioner or to the respondents or to this Court. Therefore, no adverse inference can be drawn either against the petitioner or against the respondents. The circumstances under which these missing pages were torn off are also not identifiable or ascertainable by the Enquiry Officer. So this Court could proceed on the basis that these missing pages have no relevance at all for the purpose of deciding whether the case of the petitioner that he had filed Form No. 7 in respect of land bearing Sy. No. 19/7 is established. On this point, the affidavits of persons who had handled the tappals and the records pertaining to the claim of the petitioner were examined by the administrative Officer and they throw some light on the highly controversial facts of this case. One t. G. Prabhakar, Second Division Clerk, who was a case worker, in-charge of Form No. 7 applications at the relevant time, has stated, that he had verified Form No. 7 and pointed out that Form no. 7 was available in the Tribunal's records. One t. G. Prabhakar, Second Division Clerk, who was a case worker, in-charge of Form No. 7 applications at the relevant time, has stated, that he had verified Form No. 7 and pointed out that Form no. 7 was available in the Tribunal's records. He has further stated that even though he was not the case-worker it was only at the request of the government Pleader who gave him the file to point out the Form No. 7 available in it, he opened the file of the Tribunal in his very presence and pointed out to him the Form No. 7 available in the said file. So this person only speaks to the Form No. 7 which was available in the files when he was questioned by Sri P. M. Appaji, High Court Government Pleader, on 26th September, 1985. ( 2 ) THE statement made by Sri H. S. Itagi on 4-12-1985 does not throw any light on the case. That is the subsequent statement made by him exonerating the allegation against T. G. Prabhakar, second Division Clerk. In the statement of one M. Puttabasappa, Special Land Acquisition officer, who was working as a Regular Tahsildar at the relevant time he has stated thus: "the usual procedure that was prevailing in the Office of the Land Tribunal at Honnavar was that every Tappal that was received through registered post had to be positively entered in a separate Tappal register and an R. P. number would be noted positively on the face of that letter in addition to affixing the office seal of the land Tribunal and also the concerned case worker who had received that letter would have affixed his initials on the said letter. Thereafter, I used to record my initials invariably on the face of every tappal received. It is only thereafter, the tappal used to be referred to the concerned official for registering the tappal in the general register and for delivery of the same to the concerned case worker for further action. I have seen the Form-7 application bearing no. 25/352 available in the Land tribunal file No. 2 (63/89, 352) in the office of the Advocate General. On careful perusal of the said Form-7, I find that it does not bear the initials of the Tappal Clerk and the office seal of the Land Tribunal. I have seen the Form-7 application bearing no. 25/352 available in the Land tribunal file No. 2 (63/89, 352) in the office of the Advocate General. On careful perusal of the said Form-7, I find that it does not bear the initials of the Tappal Clerk and the office seal of the Land Tribunal. Further r. P. number which used to be invariable noted on every tappal received has not been noted in this and again the Form-7 does not bear my initials in proof of having seen the same by me as I invariably used to see and attest my initials on every communication received. I also find that it is also not entered in the general register of the office for the concerned period. Thus i am of the opinion that the Form-7 which is now referred to and which is in the file of the Land Tribunal Records has not been received by me during my period and I am inclined to think that this must only be a letter entry or an insertion in the file. " so this person speaks of Form-7 which was available. But he has a doubt whether this is the form which was sent by the petitioner by registered post on 29-6-1979. Why he doubts the genuineness of this Form-7 is it does not bear the initials of the Tappal Clerk and the office seal of the land Tribunal, it does not bear the registration number and has not gone through the procedural requirements of the Office namely the initials of the Tappal Clerk of the Land Tribunal, registered post number of the cover under which it had been posted and in the absence of the official endorsement in proof of having sent the same by him, as he invariably used to see the initials of the Clerk on the other communications received and there is also no entry in the general register and for delivery of the same. For these reasons, he said that the Form No. 7 available in the file is not Form No. 7 which the petitioner is alleged to have sent by registered post on 29-6-1979. ( 3 ) THE statement of S. K. Sulakhe, retired Tahsildar, is not relevant since he does not know about the matter in controversy. Likewise the statement of S. L. Pandit, Second Division Clerk, does not throw any light. ( 3 ) THE statement of S. K. Sulakhe, retired Tahsildar, is not relevant since he does not know about the matter in controversy. Likewise the statement of S. L. Pandit, Second Division Clerk, does not throw any light. ( 4 ) THE statement of Mohammad Ghouse, who is working as Additional Tahsildar for Land, reforms at Honnavar, during the relevant period requires some consideration. What all he says is that:-"i received a communication from the Spl. Asst. Commissioner for Land Reforms, honnavar, dated 30-9-1980 directing to verify and report whether I have received form-7 application from Shri Vitoba ganapathi Nayak, dated 30-6-1979. I was in-charge of the duties of the Special tahsildar during the relevant period. After due verification from the concerned registers, I found that Shri Vitoba Ganapathi Nayak has not made any application in Form-7 dated 30-6-1979 and accordingly, I reported this to the Additional Special Tahsildar on 3-10-1980. On 18-2-1981 Shri Vitoba Ganapathi nayak sent an inland letter to the Additional special Tahsildar stating that he has filed an application in Form-7 and asking as to what action has been taken on that application and further threatening that he will fast with his family members before the office etc. Adverting to this, I once again verified from the records and found that no such application has been filed by him and accordingly, I endorsed to the party vide LRM SR 91 dated 18-12-1981 (at page 137 of File No. 1 ). I am not aware of the further developments in this case as I was relieved from the Honnavar Land Tribunal in July 1981 itself being transferred and posted as Tahsildar to Srinivasapur Taluk, Kolar District. "this person has checked the records on the instructions of the Addl. Special Tahsildar for land Reforms at Honnavar and found that the petitioner has not made any application in Form no. 7 dated 30-6-1979. But he does not say anything about the transmission of this Form No. 7 sent by the petitioner by registered post on 29-6-1979; the receipt of the same by the Department on 30-6-1979 and the contents of the cover sent by the petitioner by registered post on 29-6-1979. ( 5 ) THE next statement of Sri R. P. Mahale, Second Division Clerk, requires some consideration. He has stated that he has perused Form no. ( 5 ) THE next statement of Sri R. P. Mahale, Second Division Clerk, requires some consideration. He has stated that he has perused Form no. 7 application purported to have been filed by Sri Vitoba Ganapathi Nayak of Balakur village from the records of the Land Tribunal, Honnavar. He has noticed that there was no stamp or seal of the office of the Land Tribunal on the said Form-7 and there was no attestation of the same with the officer's signature or the office seal. He has stated that it is an essential practice to affix the seal of the Land Tribunal Office on the Court Fee stamp affixed to Form-7 and there is no attestation by the Tahsildar or any other officers of the Land Tribunal and this is contrary to the prevailing practice followed in respect of their applications. He has recalled that there was a letter from the Special Tahsildar, Honnavar, enclosing this Form No. 7 application for necessary action addressed to the Additional special Tahsildar, Honnavar, and he has got it recorded in the Form-7 register to the effect of receiving and numbered as 25/352 dated 19-11-1981. He has further stated that on the perusal of the file in the Office of the Advocate general, he now finds that the above letter has been torn-off. So this person does not speak to the cover sent by the petitioner by registered post sent on 29-6-1979 or about the contents of that letter. But he speaks to Form no. 7 as found in the files but that Form No. 7 is not the autentic Form No. 7, according to him, since there is no seal of the Land Tribunal or the Court-fee stamp affixed thereto, there is no attestation by the Tahsildar or any other officers of the Land Tribunal and the practice in respect of other applications, is not followed in this case. But he recalls the letter from the Special Tahsildar enclosing Form No. 7 as found for necessary action addressed to the Addl. Special tahsildar, Honnavar, and he got it recorded in the Form No. 7 register in proof of having received Form No. 7 application and numbered it as 25/352 on 19-11-1981. However, the covering letter of the Special Tahsildar is torn-off and so this Court is not in a position to say the implication of the covering letter of the special Tahsildar. However, the covering letter of the Special Tahsildar is torn-off and so this Court is not in a position to say the implication of the covering letter of the special Tahsildar. ( 6 ) THE next statement is made by S. N. Nayak, First Division Clerk, who was in-charge of receiving tappals and acknowledging all registered tappals received in the office of the land Tribunal. He said he received various other registered letters on 30-6-1979. To quote his own words:-"i have received a tappal from one Shri vitoba Ganapathi Nayak addressed to the special Tahsildar, Land Tribunal, Honnavar, i received various other registered letters on 30-6-1979. After receiving the tappals I have affixed my initials on them and stamped the office seal on each of them individually and submitted them to the Special tahsildar of the Land Tribunal. "so from this statement, it is clear that this Nayak had received a tappal on 30-6-1979. In the succeeding paragraphs he says that he does not recollect at this length of time as to what the contents of those tappals including the one received from Vitoba Ganapathi Nayak. His attention was also invited to Form No. 7 numbered as 25/352 at page 39 of the records and he says that that cannot be a Form No. 7 that he received because he 'was very certain that he affixed his initials with date and also the office seal on all the tappals he received on that day. In his further statement in paragraph-5 he has stated:-"at the relevant period i. e. , 30-6-1979, I was the in-charge case worker dealing in Form-7 applications. Either on 30-6-1979 or subsequently i have not received Form-7 from shri Vitoba Ganapathi Nayak. "the statement made by Sri Vittal Rao Yelasangi is not relevant since he does not know about this aspect of the case. Likewise the statement made by S. G. Kulkarni, Retired Tahsildar is not relevant because he does not know anything about this case. Likewise the statements made by the departmental officials/officers working in the Advocate General's Office are not relevant, since they speak to the circumstances relating to the missing pages in the file in question. ( 7 ) SRI P. M. Appaji, learned High Court Government Pleader, whose statement was recorded by the Enquiry Officer has said:-"in response to the abovesaid letter Shri h. S. Itagi, Special Tahsildar, Honnavar, met me on 14-9-1984. ( 7 ) SRI P. M. Appaji, learned High Court Government Pleader, whose statement was recorded by the Enquiry Officer has said:-"in response to the abovesaid letter Shri h. S. Itagi, Special Tahsildar, Honnavar, met me on 14-9-1984. On his information that one Shri S. K. Sulakhe was the Special tahsildar (food) at that point of time and the case worker dealing with the papers including Form-7 was by name Sri S. N. Naik, i wrote a letter to M/s. Sulakhe and S. N. Naik on 14/15-9-1984, under copy to one shri T. G. Prabhakar, Second Division clerk, Office of the Tahsildar, Siddapura taluk, U. K. District, asking all of them to come and see me in my office. Thus, while m/s. Sulakhe and Naik did not turn up, Shri t. G. Prabhakar met me on both 25th and 26th of September, 1985. I enquired the said Shri Prabhakar whether he was concerned in handling and dealing with the form-7 filed by applicants under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms act, including the one filed by the petitioner in the C. P. Though he said that he was not person concerned in those matters, I asked him to find out if there is Form-7 in the midst of records since he is, after all, attached to the office of the Tahsildar. Indeed Shri. T. G. Prabhakar pointed out the application in Form-7 bearing the date 29-6-1979 and signed by one Shri Vitoba ganapathi Naik. As it was elicited from the said Shri Prabhakar that Shri Deshpande was the Tahsildar at the relevant time, i. e. , during the month of June 1979; (2) one Shri naik was the concerned Clerk in-charge of receiving applications in Form-7; (3) one shri Kulkarni was also a concerned person, inasmuch as he issued certified copies of form-7 to the petitioner Sri Vitoba ganapathi Naik, in the above C. P. and (4) one Shri Mohammad Ghouse also said to be Tahsildar concerned at that point of time and as it was elicited from Snri Prabhakar that Shri Pandit and Shri Mahale are the clerks concerned with the papers relating to the Land Reforms, the said persons though did not turn up when Prabhakar appeared, the said Shri Pandit and Shri mahale as also other persons named earlier viz. , M/s. Deshpande, Naik, Kulkarni and mohammad Ghouse, were all addressed a letter dated 26/27-9-1984, asking them to come over to my office on 8-10-1984, to assist the Special Tahsildar, Honnavar, to prepare the necessary statement of facts relating to the controversial issue as to the genuineness of Form-7. A copy of the said letter dated 26/27-9-1984 was endorsed to the Special Tahsildar, Honnavar, to enable him to be present on the above dates. " now this takes me to the affidavit of H. S. Itagi which was prepared in consultation with Sri P. M. Appaji and other persons namely H. P. Mahale and Pandit. This Officer has said that:- "after a careful scrutiny of the records, i submit that no Form-7 allegedly sent by the said Vitoba Ganapathi Nayak was received in the Office of the Special Tahsildar, honnavar, in as much as, the same is not entered in the "general receipt REGISTER" and also the "village WISE REGISTER" at one and the same time. This legal formality has been complied with strictly in respect of all similar applications received from persons except the one of Vitoba Ganapathi Nayak. "in paragraph-5 he has said that:-"an application in Form-7 dated 29-6-1979 was received by the Office of the Additional special Tahsildar dated 19-11-1981 from the Office of the Special Tahsildar under letter No. LRT. SR. 4058 dated 19-9-1981 and the same was entered in the "village wise FORM 7 REGISTER"on the same date, namely, 19-11-1981 and case number to the said application was assigned as 25/352, as referred to by the petitioner in the above C. P. It is therefore, naturally that the certified copy issued to the petitioner on 1-12-1981 and 16-1-1982 are of this application in Form No. 7 and not of any Form-7 alleged to have been sent by him on 29-6-1979 under registered post acknowledgment due. It is not out of place to mention here that in the order of events, he choose to produce the certified copy of this form before the Munsiff Court. As to the genuineness of Annexure-C claimed by the petitioner, it is an acknowledgment for having sent the Form No. 7 within the prescribed time namely, 29-6-1979. But, one sri S. N. Naik-FDC. was then attached to the office of the Special Tahsildar at the time of preparing the report. As to the genuineness of Annexure-C claimed by the petitioner, it is an acknowledgment for having sent the Form No. 7 within the prescribed time namely, 29-6-1979. But, one sri S. N. Naik-FDC. was then attached to the office of the Special Tahsildar at the time of preparing the report. It is elicited from him that it is true that he gave Annexure-C acknowledgment, but, he categorically denies that the "cover" received by the office contained the alleged application in form-7, inasmuch as, if it was so, immediately the same would have found a place in the "general RECEIPT REGISTER" and also bearing the date of receipt, duly mentioned on the application itself. Similarly, the "general RECEIPT REGISTER"would have shown the receipt of such an application. The "village WISE FORM-7 register" is also silent about the same. He, therefore, thinks that under the Annexure-C, anything else other than Form No. 7 might have been received. Much more so, on the date alleged by him, namely, 30-6-1979, no application in Form No. 7 whatsoever from this person has been received. Except of this person, number of applications in Form No. 7 have been received in the Office of Special Tahsildar on 30-6-1979 and all of them have been duly entered in the "general RECEIPT REGISTER. " in paragraph-6 of his Affidavit he has stated that:"under the circumstances, the Form-7 now available in the records, as stated earlier, is received later from the office of the special Tahsildar on 19-11-1981 and the seal was affixed on the covering letter, which is found torn-off. "in paragraph-8 he has stated that:"to sum-up, I state that no original application dated 29-6-1979 was sent by the petitioner, allegedly received by the Special tahsildar on 30-6-1979, as claimed by him. "this person is an important official being a special Tahsildar and he was in-charge of the Land tribunal's office at the relevant time. So from his evidence, two things are clear. Firstly, an envelope was sent by registered post on 29-6-1979 by the petitioner to the Tribunal's Office and the same was received by 30-6-1979. This Nayak who was in-charge of Tappal has signed the acknowledgment card Annexure-C in proof of having received the said cover. According to this witness, the said cover did not contain Form no. Firstly, an envelope was sent by registered post on 29-6-1979 by the petitioner to the Tribunal's Office and the same was received by 30-6-1979. This Nayak who was in-charge of Tappal has signed the acknowledgment card Annexure-C in proof of having received the said cover. According to this witness, the said cover did not contain Form no. 7 said to have been sent by the petitioner; if it had been sent, it would have found a place in the relevant register and also borne the necessary endorsement of the official concerned. But this Officer on 12-9-1984, in his parawise remarks to the Government Pleader on the averments made by the petitioner in the Civil Petition has said:" But since 31-12-1981 at the time of final enquiry, the application of the petitioner as forwarded by the Special Tahsildar, Honnavar vide his letter dated 19-9-1981 bearing lrm SR 4058 requesting to take further action and thereafterwards the application was referred to the Revenue Inspector for enquiry and since the application was registered giving No. LRT SR 25/352. It seems that the application dated 30-6-1979 sent by the applicant by registered post was received in the office, but for some reason, his application was not registered immediately but it was done so only when the applicant resorted to fasting (Upavasa satyagraha) and only after pressure was brought from the superior officers the application was traced. "however, in Para-12 he has said:- So on consideration of these statements, two factors emerge out very prominently. Firstly, that a registered letter was sent by the petitioner on 29-6-1979 and the same was received by the tappal section and they have endorsed the receipt of the letter in Annexure-C which bears the seal of the Special Tahsildar, Honnavar. What did that letter contain? The petitioner says that he had sent Form No. 7 bearing the date 29-6-1979 and in the normal course of events, this letter has reached the Special Tahsildar Office on 30-6-1979. So if he had sent Form No. 7 in the cover sent by R. P. A. D. on 29-6-1979, his claim for occupancy rights in the land bearing No. 19/7 was in time. So if he had sent Form No. 7 in the cover sent by R. P. A. D. on 29-6-1979, his claim for occupancy rights in the land bearing No. 19/7 was in time. But the evidence that goes against him is the practice in the Land Tribunal's Office regularly followed by the Officials in regard to processing of these applications after the same are received i. e. , entry in the tappal book etc. The view of the Department is that Form No. 7 sent by the petitioner did not go through the formalities and rituals and therefore what the petitioner sent in his cover despatched on 29-6-1979 was not Form No. 7 but something else. But that something else is not in the records. It is rather far from truth to say that the petitioner would have sent a blank envelope containing nothing by registered post with a view to put up a make-believe case for having sent Form No. 7 just on the particular day. The only communication that he, being the tenant and regard being had to the nature of the claim against the landlord, must have sent his Form No. 7 for making a claim for occupancy rights in land bearing Sy. No. 19/7. . If that application has been sent/made and if that application had been barred by time, there was no reason why the special Tahsildar, Honnavar, by his letter dated 19-9-1981 bearing No. LRM SR 4058 requested the additional Special Tahsildar to take further action and why that application in turn was referred to the Revenue Inspector for enquiry and registered as LRT SR 25/352. Further this case also was clubbed with the other cases as could be seen from the common order of the Land tribunal. All the Officials fully subscribe to the fact that there was a Form No. 7 on the file of the Land Tribunal. But they are not certain when that Form No. 7 was received in the tribunal's Office. The only factor which goes against the petitioner is that this Form No. 7 does not bear the seal of the Tribunal's Office and does not bear the necessary endorsement by the tribunal Officials. However, that lacuna in the case of the petitioner is made-up by the parawise remarks of the Special Tahsildar, Sri H. S. Itagi in his report dated 12-9-1984. However, that lacuna in the case of the petitioner is made-up by the parawise remarks of the Special Tahsildar, Sri H. S. Itagi in his report dated 12-9-1984. I wonder why he could not have spoken in his affidavit dated 10-10-1984 that that Form No. 7 was inserted subsequently and it did not form part of the tappal received by the Land Tribunal's Office on 30-6-1979. He has categorically stated that the application sent by the petitioner by registered post was received in the office, but for some reason, his application was not registered immediately but it was done so only when the applicant resorted to fasting (Upavasa satyagraha) and only after pressure was brought from the superior officers the application was traced. That goes to show that that Form No. 7 filed by the petitioner did reach the Tribunal's office on 30-6-1979 but that was misplaced for some reason on that day. This Form No. 7 came to light only subsequently and the Special tahsildar by a letter dated 19-9-1981 requested the additional Special Tahsildar to take action in accordance with law and thus a registration number was given to that Form No. 7 namely LRT SR 25/352. On these facts, I think there was some slip or error in the Office of the Land Tribunal while dealing with the petitioner's application in form No. 7 and this Official slip or error should not operate against the petitioner's interest. However, the petitioner did not choose to file a return though specifically the Landlord had stated in the Writ Petition that no Form No. 7 for land bearing Sy. No. 19/7 was filed by the petitioner. If the petitioner had filed his return and produced these documents which he has sought to produce now, this Court could have made an appropriate order on the material available on record, without driving the parties to further proceedings as has been done in this Civil petition. ( 8 ) MR. No. 19/7 was filed by the petitioner. If the petitioner had filed his return and produced these documents which he has sought to produce now, this Court could have made an appropriate order on the material available on record, without driving the parties to further proceedings as has been done in this Civil petition. ( 8 ) MR. T. S. Ramachandra, learned Advocate, appearing for respondent No. 3, submitted that even assuming that if this Court comes to the conclusion that Form No. 7 filed by the petitioner was within time, the document on which the petitioner relies namely, the acknowledgment form produced as Annexure-C filed in this Civil Petition was under his custody and within his knowledge and therefor it cannot be said that the petitioner is relying on a new document which was not available to him when the writ Petition was disposed of by this Court earlier. Though this petition is for review, this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution can mould the reliefs having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. Recently in Civil Petition no. 353/1989 filed by the Union of India against my order in Writ Petition No. 16322/1986 i had recalled the order on the ground that there was miscarriage of justice and the same was done on payment of costs. In the circumstances, I think the proper order to make is to recall the order, in so far as it relates to Sy. No. 19/7 of balkur Village, and direct the Land Tribunal, honnavar Taluk, Uttara Kannada District, to hold a fresh enquiry into the claim of the petitioner in the land bearing Sy. No. 19/7. But the petitioner shall confine his claim only to 20 guntas of land and not 1 acre of land, as claimed in Form No. 7 as he has not challenged the order rejecting his claim for the entire extent of land. ( 9 ) FOR these reasons, this Civil Petition is allowed subject to the condition that the petitioner pays a sum of Rs. 1,000/- as costs to the contesting respondent No. 3 within four weeks from this date. If such payment is made by the petitioner, the Land Tribunal, Honnavar taluk, Uttara Kannada District, shall take the form No. 7 of the petitioner on its file, in so far as it relates to Sy. 1,000/- as costs to the contesting respondent No. 3 within four weeks from this date. If such payment is made by the petitioner, the Land Tribunal, Honnavar taluk, Uttara Kannada District, shall take the form No. 7 of the petitioner on its file, in so far as it relates to Sy. No. 19/7 of Balkur Village, honnavar Taluk, and after holding an enquiry in strict compliance with Rule 17 of the Karnataka land Reforms Rules, 1964 dispose of the application of the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. ( 10 ) FURTHER, if the claim of the petitioner fails before the Land Tribunal on the ground that he is not a tenant of the land in question, the land Tribunal is at liberty to award exemplary costs to the landlord. ( 11 ) THE sealed cover containing six documents in this case shall be handed over to the learned Counsel for the petitioner forthwith. Petition allowed. --- *** --- .