A. V. SRINIVASA REDDY, J. ( 1 ) THIS land reforms revision petition is filed by the petitioner under section 121-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, aggrieved by the order dated 27-9-1989 passed by the Land Reforms Appellate Authority, bijapur on LA. No II in L. R. A. No. 227 of 1988. ( 2 ) THE short question arising in this revision is whether the amendment sought by the respondent could have been allowed by the Appellate authority as has been done by it under the impugned order. ( 3 ) THE respondent-Girimallappa Nandabasappa Hadapad filed the application before the Appellate Tribunal for amendment of Form 7 originally filed by him before the Land Tribunal. The said application came to be allowed. Being aggrieved the petitioner-owner has come up in this revision. ( 4 ) I have heard the learned Counsel Mr. Ashok R. Kalyan Shetty for the petitioner. ( 5 ) THE legal representatives of Girimallappa Nandabasappa Hadapad though served have not chosen to appear and defend their cause in this revision. On 10-7-2003 Mr. S. P. Shahapur, learned Counsel who was appearing for late Girimallappa Nandabasappa Hadapad undertook to appear for the legal representatives also. But on 13-8-2003 he filed a memo in this Court stating that despite addressing a letter to the legal representatives of the deceased respondent 2 no instructions are forthcoming from them and for want of instructions and Vakalath he cannot appear for them in this proceedings. In the memo he also sought permission of the Court to retire from the case. This Court has taken the memo on record on 13-8-2003 and permitted the Counsel to retire from the case. ( 6 ) SECTION 48-A (l) of the Act governs the filing of an application by the applicant before the Tribunal. The provision has stipulated the time- limit within which every application under the Act for registration of occupancy rights has to be made. The provision reads:"48-A. Enquiry by the Tribunal, etc. (1) Every person entitled to be registered as an occupant under Section 45 may make an application to the Tribunal in this behalf. Every such application shall, save as provided in this Act, be made before the expiry of a period of six months from the date of the commencement of Section 1 of the Karnataka Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1978". Every such application shall, save as provided in this Act, be made before the expiry of a period of six months from the date of the commencement of Section 1 of the Karnataka Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1978". Sub-section (2) of Section 1 of the Amendment Act 1 of 1979 states that the amended Section 48-A shall be deemed to have come into force on the First day of March, 1974 itself. Therefore, any application for registration of occupancy rights must have been made within six months from March 1974. Though the application in the present case was made within time, the amendment application is filed after the expiry of the time and as late as in the year 1989. The application filed in time bore no details and it is virtually a blank application. Unless the Form 7 made by the applicant bears all the necessary details it cannot be treated as valid application and any attempt to correct it and to making it a valid application ought to have been made by the applicant within the outer time-limit prescribed by the Act. The amendments sought without which the application would not have been complete and valid for purpose of considering the case of the applicant for grant of occupancy rights, being hopelessly barred by time the Appellate Authority was not right in law to have granted the same. It ought to have rejected the prayer for amendment and proceeded to consider the case of the applicant only on the basis of the application made by the applicant within time. It has been held in Seethodevi v Narayana Kamath and others, that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain an application for amendment seeking to include a new item of land claiming occupancy right. Even in the said case, it was held by this Court that even though the application filed in Form 7 may have been in time, the amendment application filed after the expiry of the time-limit could not have been considered and included in the original Form 7 filed by the applicant. Thus, it is by now well-settled that no amendment could be allowed to be carried out to Form 7 after the cut off date. Thus, it is by now well-settled that no amendment could be allowed to be carried out to Form 7 after the cut off date. In R. Krishaswamy rao v Lakshmaiah Setty and Others, it is held that an application for amendment to enlarge the extent of land in a particular survey number amounts to making a fresh claim which is not permissible. The amendment allowed by the land reforms authority was held to be beyond the time prescribed by statute and, therefore, the order of the land reforms authority permitting the amendment was struck down. In this case, the application for amendment of Form 7 is/was presented by the tenant before the Appellate Authority on 27-9-1989 which is beyond the period prescribed in Section 48-A of the Act. Form 7 as originally submitted by the respondent-tenant did not bear any details of the land, the owner of the land etc. The Form 7 presented to the Tribunal is blank in respect of all relevant materials. In such circumstances permitting the tenant to amend Form 7 after the time prescribed by statute would be totally unjustified. Therefore, the order passed by the Appellate authority allowing the application filed for amendment is liable to be set aside. ( 7 ) ACCORDINGLY, the revision petition is allowed and the impugned order of the Appellate Authority permitting the amendment to Form 7 is set aside. --- *** --- .