S. R. VENKATESHA MURTHY, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner sought occupancy rights in respect of two sy. Nos. 10/6 measuring 10 guntas and 64/4b measuring 1 acre in akkivalli village, hangal taluk in form No. 7 filed by the petitioner. He mentioned that other than the lands referred to above, he was the owner of sy. No. 64/3 measuring 25 guntas and sy. No. 44 measuring 7 acres and 12 guntas. ( 2 ) AT the first instance, the land tribunal made an order on 3-3-1976 rejecting the petitioners claim for occupancy rights in respect of sy. No. 10/6 measuring 10 guntas on the ground that the petitioner was the owner thereof. Thereafter, the petitioner's claim for occupancy rights in respect of 1 acre of land in sy. No. 64/4b was taken up by the land tribunal and by an order dated 12-10-1981, the land tribunal conferred occupancy rights in respect of sy. No. 64/4b measuring 1 acre of akkivalli village. Thereafter, the petitioner filed writ petition No. 15478 of 1984 contending that he is a tenant of 7 acres and 12 guntas of land in sy. No. 44 of akkivalli village, having been a lessee for more than 30 years paying rent to the 6th respondent. The petitioner claims that at the time form No. 7 was filed by him seeking occupancy rights in respect of the tenanted lands, on account of illiteracy, he got the form No. 7 filled up by a neighbour. The scribe of the form No. 7 mentioned sy. No. 44 measuring 7 acres and 12 guntas in the lower tabulated column of form No. 7 and mentioned it as being owned by the petitioner. Apparently, 10 guntas of land in sy. No. 10/6 was written in the wrong tabulated column, i. e. , the column meant for seeking occupancy rights, while he was in fact, the owner thereof. The petitioner claims that on 12-10-1981, no enquiry was conducted and the petitioner was told that the natter was adjourned and the next date of hearing would be intimated. However, the petitioner came to know of the order Annexure-B conferring occupancy rights in respect of sy. No. 64/4b only. The petitioner claims that on 12-10-1981, no enquiry was conducted and the petitioner was told that the natter was adjourned and the next date of hearing would be intimated. However, the petitioner came to know of the order Annexure-B conferring occupancy rights in respect of sy. No. 64/4b only. The petitioner claims that he was unaware of the order dated 18-3-1981 and soon after he came to know of the same, he has filed this writ petition challenging the non-consideration of his request for occupancy rights in respect of sy. No. 44 measuring 7 acres and 12 guntas at akkivalli village. In the writ petition, the petitioner also sought amendment of form No. 7 by incorporating sy. No. 44 in the petition, so far as it relates to 7 acres and 12 guntas of land. The writ petition has come back to this court after passing through the land reforms appellate authority, without any orders being made other than some superficial and in-consequential amendment. On a civil petition, the records of the land reforms appellate authority were secured and registered as this writ petition. ( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the 6th respondent has sought to resist the claim on the ground that the petitioner has no right to seek an amendment of the form No. 7 by indicating that occupancy rights in respect of 7 acres and 12 guntas of land in sy. No. 44 of akkivalli village. Reliance was placed on the decisions in Virupaxappa Basappa v Land Tribunal, Dharwad and others and Seethadevi V Narayana Kamath and others and R. Krishnaswamy Rao v Lakshmaiah Setty and others. The first two decisions referred to above have laid down that after 30-6-1979, the last date for receipt of an application in form No. 7, no applicant can seek an amendment of the form No. 7 by incorporating a new sy. No. In the form No. 7 for purpose of grant of occupancy rights. ( 4 ) IN r. Krishnaswamy rao's case, supra, the question was whether form No. 7 could be amended by enlarging the extent of the land in a sy. No. His lordship, Mr. No. In the form No. 7 for purpose of grant of occupancy rights. ( 4 ) IN r. Krishnaswamy rao's case, supra, the question was whether form No. 7 could be amended by enlarging the extent of the land in a sy. No. His lordship, Mr. Justice k. a. swami (as he then was) observed that such an application for amendment, to enlarge the extent of the land amounts to making a fresh claim which is not permissible and the land reforms appellate authority was not justified in allowing the amendment beyond the time prescribed by the statute. ( 5 ) THE question that arises in the instant case is whether the request made by the petitioner has the effect of bringing out a change in the nature of the claim made by the petitioner. Admittedly, the petitioner is illiterate person and he got the form No. 7 filled up by a person, who is described as a neighbour, in the first tabulated column of the form No. 7. the petitioner incorporated sy. No. 64/4b measuring 1 acre and sy. No. 10/6 measuring 10 guntas in the aforesaid tabulated column (para 2 of the tabulated columns in form No. 7 ). The petitioner in form No. 7, mentioned two sy. Nos. 64/3 measuring 25 guntas and 44 measuring 7 acres and' 12 guntas as being otherwise possessed by him either as owner or as lessee. But, he mentioned. Sy. No. 44 in the later column while, it is contended that it ought to have mentioned in the place of sy. No. 10/6 measuring 10 guntas in the order dated 3-3-1976 by which, the land tribunal rejected his claim on the ground that the petitioner being the owner of the said land, could not seek occupancy rights. Apparently, the petitioner's ignorance must not have helped him in realising the mistake, so far as it relates to sy. No. 44 which is found mentioned in the 2nd tabulated column in the form No. 7 filed by him. This was apparently realised by the petitioner, when he had the first opportunity of legal assistance. When he filed the writ petition No. 15478 of 1984 where, a specific ground that the sy. No. 10/6 and sy. No. 44 which is found mentioned in the 2nd tabulated column in the form No. 7 filed by him. This was apparently realised by the petitioner, when he had the first opportunity of legal assistance. When he filed the writ petition No. 15478 of 1984 where, a specific ground that the sy. No. 10/6 and sy. No. 44 were interchanged in the form No. 7 and what ought to have been mentioned in the column in relation to claim for occupancy rights had been incorporated in the column giving information relating to ownership etc. , of other land held by the applicant. It is indeed undisputed that the 6th respondent is the owner of the property bearing sy. No. 44 measuring 7 acres and 12 guntas. ( 6 ) THE question that requires to be answered is whether the petitioner would be entitled to point out what is shown to be an obvious mistake regarding the land in respect of which he was claiming occupancy rights by reason of the interchange of sy. No. 10/6 measuring 10 guntas of land and sy. No. 44 measuring 7 acres and 10 guntas in the form No. 7 filed by him and seek occupancy rights therefor. An amendment of a claim obviously means the incorporation of a new thing either in the substitution of what is already stated or by way of addition of something which is not already stated. If it is a case of an amendment by an incorporation of a new thing in the claim, the decisions referred to above would squarely apply and the petitioner would not be entitled any relief. The petitioner is not seeking to substitute or add by way of an amendment in form No. 7, but is only seeking to plead that on account of ignorance, illiteracy, the person who filled up the form No. 7 has interchanged to sy. No. 10/6 and sy. No. 44 in columns in which they ought to have been mentioned, and is praying that sy. No. 44 be read as the land in respect of which occupancy rights are sought by him. Such a prayer cannot be read as an amendment which is barred by law by reason of its being pointed out after the last date for filing an application in form No. 7 i. e. , 30-6-1979. No. 44 be read as the land in respect of which occupancy rights are sought by him. Such a prayer cannot be read as an amendment which is barred by law by reason of its being pointed out after the last date for filing an application in form No. 7 i. e. , 30-6-1979. Hence, the land tribunal is empowered to examine the claim of the petitioner and there is no legal bar for doing so. ( 7 ) THE plea raised by the petitioner is a question of faet that the land tribunal would have to examine and if it is found as a fact that there has been such an interchange of sy. Nos. , the land tribunal would be empowered to examine the case of the petitioner so far as it relates to sy. No. 44 measuring 7 acres and 12 guntas. ( 8 ) IN the circumstances, the writ petition stands allowed and the matter is remitted to the land tribunal has to afford opportunity to the petitioner to prove what he claims to be a mistake that has arisen in the filling of the form No. 7 an error for which he is not responsible and thereafter, the land tribunal shall permit both the parties to tender evidence in support of the respective claims and decide the matter in accordance with Rule 17 of the Land Reforms Act, 1974. ( 9 ) A perusal of the records of the land tribunal would show that the land tribunal in fact has not followed the procedure prescribed by Rule 17 of the land reforms rules. But, the grant of occupancy rights relating to one acre of land in sy. No. 64/4b, not being challenged by anyone, shall remain undisturbed. ( 10 ) IN terms stated above, the writ petition is allowed and the matter remitted to the land tribunal for compliance. Rule made absolute. --- *** --- .