M. P. CHANDRAKANTARAJ, J. ( 1 ) IS aggrieved by the order of the trial Court as well as the lower appellate Court. ( 2 ) FACTS leading to this appeaj may be briefly stated and they are as follows:- plaintiff brought Original Suit No. 539 of 1978 inter alia pleading that the defendant therein had encroached upon his land to the extent of 10 gun- tas in Survey No. 300/1 in which the plaintiff had been conferred occupancy rights by the Land tribunal, Nanjangud constituted under the Karnataka land Reforms Act by an order of the said tribunal dated 20th March, 1976 passed in LRF 932/1974-75. In the very same proceeding, the defendant also had been granted in Survey No. 300/1 occupancy rights in respect of an extent of 1 acre and 2 guntas. Some three years thereafter, the defendant made another application to the land Tribunal, Nanjangud seeking occupancy rights in respect of 17 guntas of land of which he claimed to be tenant in Survey No. 300/2 of the same village. These facts are not in dispute. What is required to be stated at this stage itself is that survey No. 300 before the sub-division, measured in all 2 acres 24 guntas only. ( 3 ) THEREFORE, what was done in 1976 by the said Tribunal was to dispose of the total extent of land in Survey Nos. 300/1 and 300/2 by the orders made in favour of the plaintiff and defendant leaving only one gunta of land unaccounted. Therefore, any order obtained by the defendant subsequently under the 1979 application was in respect of land which really did not exist for conferment of occupancy rights once again in that survey number whether it was sub-divided or otherwise except to the extent of one gunta. It is in the light of these undisputed facts, the plaintiff asserted that he must be put in possession of one acre 21 guntas of land in Survey No. 300/1 to which he was entitled to under Exhibit P-3 the order made by the Land Tribunal in his favour. The plea of the defendant is and has been throughout that he is also entitled to 1 acre 2 guntas in survey No. 300/1 plus 17 guntas in Survey no. 300/2 which would make the extent of land in survey No. 300 2 acres 23 guntas + 17 guntas. The plea of the defendant is and has been throughout that he is also entitled to 1 acre 2 guntas in survey No. 300/1 plus 17 guntas in Survey no. 300/2 which would make the extent of land in survey No. 300 2 acres 23 guntas + 17 guntas. That would be 3 acres which does not exist in that survey number. Apparently, the order made by the Land Tribunal on the second application made by the defendant was clearly an order without jurisdiction and could not therefore confer on him any better right in regard to the occupancy than what he had in respect of the same survey No. 300/1 which was disposed of together with the application of the plaintiff in the manner earlier stated, in 1976. ( 4 ) AS long as the defendant had not got rid of the order in favour of the plaintiff conferring occupancy rights to the extent of 1 acre 21 guntas of land in Survey No. 300/1 to which he is entitled, the Courts-below were correct in coming to the conclusion on the fact that the second order did not, in fact, confer any right upon the defendant. ( 5 ) MR. Shivappa, appearing for the defendant-appellant,has not disputed the facts stated above. His only contention is that he must have the benefit of the order made in 1976 in his favour as well as the grant of occupancy rights in respect of 17 guntas in 1979. ( 6 ) THUS viewed, he contends that the judgment sand decrees under appeal amount to assuming jurisdiction despite the bar created by sections 132 and 133 of the Land Reforms Act. ( 7 ) I do not think that this is correct way of looking at it. Patently, Land Tribunal, Nanjangud made a mistake of conferring occupancy rights in excess of what the defendant was entitled to in excess of what the defendant was entitled to in survey No. 300/1 not realising that there was a sub-division which had taken away 17 guntas from that number after the division. They ap- parently mistook survey number to consist of land in extent measuring more than 2 acres 24 guntas which had led to the confusion. They ap- parently mistook survey number to consist of land in extent measuring more than 2 acres 24 guntas which had led to the confusion. ( 8 ) IT is unfortunate that the Courts below could not express themselves with clarity in this behalf and on account of the decisions cited in regard to the bar of jurisdiction of Civil Courts in view of Sections 132'and 133 of the Karnataka land Reforms Act. They proceeded to over- come the decisions by distinguishing the same having regard to the reliefs prayed for in those suits and subject-matter of those suits. ( 9 ) THE plaintiff did no more than seek possession of land which had been given to him by the land Tribunal. As long as he was entitled to 1 acre 21 guntas of land in Survey No. 300/1, the civil Court had jurisdiction to protect what was his and remove the encroachment made by the defendant. Thus viewed, I do not see any error of law or jurisdiction in the Judgments and decrees under appeal. Therefore, the so-called substantial question of law formulated by Mr. Shivappa in this Court at the time of arguing the appeal, which is as follows: courts-below have erred in sitting over judgment over the occupancy rights conferred in favour of the appellant-defendant by the Land Tribunal of Nanjangud in LRF 5601/79 in respect of Survey No. 300/2, really does not fall for consideration. He must be content that the land which he was cultivating in that survey number to the extent to which he was given occupancy rights 1 acre 2 guntas. Merely because a second order came to be made erroneously by the Tribunal, the extent of land in survey Nos. 300/1 and 300/2 does not get automatically enlarged. If it is to be enlarged as Mr. Shivappa contends, it must be on a side which does not encroach on the side of the plaintiffs land. Subject to the observation, I find no merit in this appeal and as such it is dismissed. --- *** --- .