JUDGMENT ( 1. ) THE petitioner is granted occupancy rights to the extent of 14 acres in Sy. No. 63/1 of Mookabasarikatti Village of Shiggaon taluk. The respondents 1 to 3 have been granted occupancy rights in Sy. Nos. 63/2, 63/3 and 63/4 measuring 8 acres 39 guntas each. ( 2. ) THE petitioner filed a suit inO.S. No. 172 of 1986 on the file of the civil Judge (Junior Division), Haveri alleging encroachment to the extent of 33 guntas by the defendant and for relief of possession. The suit is decreed in RA 41 of 1992. It is found that first defendant has encroached to the land to the extent of 33 guntas of land and granted the decree for possession. In the second appeal, this Court made the following observations: "however, in view of the concurrent finding of facts of the alleged encroachment by the first defendant complained of by the plaintiff, rendered by the Courts below, there is no question of law involved in the second appeal to get it admitted. No useful purpose will be served by keeping the appeal pending after admission. "in view of this, the appeal is dismissed. However, liberty is given to the appellant to move the Land Tribunal to re-measure the lands of all the parties and move for fixation of boundaries as provided under the Act. It is made clear that the dismissal of appeal cannot stand in the way of Land Tribunal passing any independent orders. " The Petitioner made an application to the Tribunal for Survey of the properties pursuant to the direction of this Court in the second appeal. The Tribunal by order at Annexure-B dated 24. 2. 1999 measured the lands and found that petitioner is entitled to occupancy rights only to an extent of 13 acres and 12 guntas and not 14 acres granted by its earlier order. It is held that 1st respondent is entitled to occupancy rights to an extent of 9 acres 27 guntas as against 8 acres 39 guntas granted by its earlier order. As a result of this order, the 1st respondent got additional extent of 28 guntas under the impugned order. ( 3. ) THE Counsel for the first respondent argued that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to review its order, to conduct resurvey and to fix the boundaries in the present case. As a result of this order, the 1st respondent got additional extent of 28 guntas under the impugned order. ( 3. ) THE Counsel for the first respondent argued that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to review its order, to conduct resurvey and to fix the boundaries in the present case. The Tribunal had done the survey and fixed the boundaries by virtue of the order of this Court. The modification of the grant effected by the Tribunal is sound and proper and there is no illegality in the order. ( 4. ) THE interpretation of the above provision of law by the Counsel for the 1st respondent, although prima facie attractive, but on deep scrutiny, would lead to dangerous consequences generating endless litigation. The tenancy rights which have been granted and the matters finally concluded under the pretext of boundary demarcation becomes always vulnerable for review and there will be no finality to the decision. Every grantee can invoke the provision and make an application to seek review of the order regarding the extent of land. If any lesser extent is granted, the person aggrieved should file an appeal or writ petition as the case may be and should have agitated the matter at the appropriate time. After lapse of several years, when the boundary dispute arose between the parties, the provision cannot be invoked to seek occupancy rights in respect of the lands which is not granted under the guise of correcting the extent of land granted by making actual survey. It is settled principles of law that whenever there is discrepancy between the extent and the boundary, the boundary shall prevail. When boundaries are not definite, the extent of the land stated shall alone became the criteria for fixing the boundaries. It is impermissible for the Tribunal to invoke powers to grant more extent of land than what was granted. ( 5. ) IN the instant case, the Civil Court has found that there is no encroachment. The bund is found in existence. The Tribunal has not conducted the enquiry to find out whether the bund in question pertains to the land of the first respondent was in existence as on 1. 3. 1974. ( 5. ) IN the instant case, the Civil Court has found that there is no encroachment. The bund is found in existence. The Tribunal has not conducted the enquiry to find out whether the bund in question pertains to the land of the first respondent was in existence as on 1. 3. 1974. When there being no such finding, it is not safe to place reliance upon the bund as a demarcating boundary to re-determine the extent of area of occupancy rights and grant the occupancy rights to the area excess than what is earlier granted. The order of the Land Tribunal suffers from serious infirmity. ( 6. ) THE first respondent even assuming that he is cultivating 29 guntas, his claim was rejected and that has become final. Therefore, the Tribunal could not have granted the occupancy rights to the extent of 9 acres 27 guntas as against 8 acres 39 guntas. Accordingly, the order of the Land tribunal granting the land to the extent of 9 acres 27 guntas is set aside. The matter is remitted to the Land Tribunal for fresh disposal in accordance with law in the light of the above observations.