ORDER : B.S. Patil, J. - In these writ petitions, petitioners are calling in question the order dated 16-2-2012 passed by the Land Tribunal, Moodabidare, Mangaiuru Taluk, thereby allowing the interim application filed by the tenant-respondent 1 herein seeking amendment of Form 7 filed by him. 2. The dispute raised in these writ petitions has got a checkered history. Respondent 1 herein claimed as tenant of certain lands. He filed Form 7 under Section 48-A(1) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act'), seeking grant of occupancy rights in respect of four survey numbers viz.: (1) Sy. No. 23/4 measuring 85 cents; (2) Sy. No. 23/7 measuring 17 cents; (3) Sy. No. 22/4 measuring 66 cents; and (4) Sy. No. 138/2 measuring 52 cents, all situated at Hosabettu Village of Karkala Taluk, Mangaiuru District. He claimed that he was cultivating the lands in question for the last more than 50 years. 3. The Land Tribunal held an inquiry and passed order dated 24-9-1981 granting occupancy rights in respect of all the aforesaid lands including another Sy. No. 138/IB measuring 80 cents, which was not mentioned in Form 7 and in respect whereof, claim for grant of occupancy rights was not mentioned. 4. Father of the petitioners-Jayakumar Indra challenged the order passed by the Land Tribunal in W.P. No. 5929 of 1983. It was contended by him that in respect of Sy. No. 138/IB, of which we are now concerned in this writ petition, the order of the Tribunal was wholly without jurisdiction as the tenant had not laid any claim seeking occupancy rights for the said land while filing Form 7. This contention of the landowner was accepted by this Court and this Court passed the following order. - "Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The impugned order of the Tribunal insofar it relates to land bearing Sy. No. 138/IB is wholly without jurisdiction since respondent 1 did not claim occupancy rights in the said land in Form 7 filed by him. 3. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed, the impugned order is quashed and the matter is remitted to the Land Tribunal for fresh disposal of the claim of respondent 1 after holding a fresh enquiry in strict compliance with the requirements of Rule 17 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Rules, 1974. The impugned order regarding other Sy. Nos. remains undisturbed. 3. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed, the impugned order is quashed and the matter is remitted to the Land Tribunal for fresh disposal of the claim of respondent 1 after holding a fresh enquiry in strict compliance with the requirements of Rule 17 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Rules, 1974. The impugned order regarding other Sy. Nos. remains undisturbed. It is open to respondent 1 to seek the amendment of his application in Form 7 after notice to the petitioner. No costs. 4. The learned High Court Government Advocate is permitted to file his memo of appearance for respondents no. 1 and 2 within 4 weeks from today." It is thus clear that the matter was remanded only for consideration with regard to Sy. No. 138/IB, reserving liberty to the tenant to seek amendment of his Form 7. 5. After the matter was remanded to the Tribunal, the tenant-respondent 1 herein filed an application on 31-3-2011 seeking amendment of Form 7 so as to include Sy. No. 138/IB measuring 80 cents in the claim made for grant of occupancy rights. In the affidavit filed in the support of the application, respondent 1-tenant stated that he was an illiterate villager and had wrongly mentioned Sy. No. 22/4 measuring 66 cents in his application filed in Form 7, instead of mentioning Sy. No. 138/IB measuring 80 cents. He further contended that the landlord had indeed consented for grant of occupancy rights by appearing before the Tribunal on the previous occasion, therefore, he did not seek for amendment of Form 7. He also contended that he had developed the land by incurring expenditure and that he was making the application pursuant to the order passed by the High Court. Reliance was placed by him on the surveyor's report. 6. This application was resisted by filing objections by the father of the present petitioners. He contended that the claim sought to be made by way of amendment was false and an after thought one, apart from being time barred. 7. The Tribunal has, allowed the said application accepting the case put forward by the tenant-respondent 1 herein. At the outset, it has to be stated that the Tribunal has not assigned any reason supporting its conclusion and as to why the application deserved to be allowed. 8. Learned Counsel Mr. 7. The Tribunal has, allowed the said application accepting the case put forward by the tenant-respondent 1 herein. At the outset, it has to be stated that the Tribunal has not assigned any reason supporting its conclusion and as to why the application deserved to be allowed. 8. Learned Counsel Mr. Keshava Bhat appearing for the petitioners contends by placing reliance on the judgment in the case of Pakeera Moolya v. K.R. Mari Bhat and Others, ILR 1994 Kar. 809 (DB) that if the tenant has omitted to mention in his claim any land and after the expiry of the period of limitation seeks to amend Form 7 - application laying an additional claim in respect of another land, then such amendment is not permissible to include a new item of land because that would amount to making a new claim after the expiry of limitation. He has invited the attention of the Court to the observations made in paragraph 9 of the said judgment. It is his contention that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the application to permit the tenant either include a new claim or substitute a new survey number in the place of another survey number. 9. Mr. Naragund, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent 1-tenant has contended that the tenant being an illiterate villager was not conversant with the survey number. He had claimed occupancy rights with regard to Sy. No. 22/4 measuring 66 cents instead of claiming occupancy rights in respect of Sy. No. 138/1B measuring 80 cents. According to him, this is not a case where a new claim is made in respect of an altogether different land; this is a case where mistake committed by the tenant in mentioning a wrong survey number was sought to be corrected by mentioning the correct survey number, therefore, the judgment of the Division Bench had no application to the facts of the present case. In this regard, he has placed reliance on the unreported judgment of the Division Bench in Padmaraja Athikari v. Land Tribunal, Karkal and Others, W.P. No. 20080 of 1991 (LR), dated 15-7-1993 (DB) and the judgments of the learned Single Judge in the case of Y.S. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka and Others, ILR 2005 Kar. 2111; Krishmyya A, chary v. Ganapathi Joisa and Others, 1998 (4) Kar. 2111; Krishmyya A, chary v. Ganapathi Joisa and Others, 1998 (4) Kar. L.J. 308 and A. Susheela v. The 1st Land Tribunal, Puttur and Others, 2006 (6) Kar. L.J. 254 apart from inviting the attention of the Court to the provisions contained in Section 48-A(3) to 48-A(6) of the Act. 10. As per Section 48-A(1), every person entitled to be registered as an occupant under Section 45 is enjoined with an obligation to make an application to the Tribunal claiming grant of occupancy rights. Sub-section (3) of Section 48-A states thus: "(3) The form of the application, the form of the notices, the manner of publishing or serving the notices and all other matters connected therewith shall be such as may be prescribed. The Tribunal may for valid and sufficient reasons permit the tenant to amend the application." 11. The jurisdiction to permit amendment to the claim made by the tenant has been conferred by virtue of the amendment inserted by Act No. 1 of 1979 which is deemed to have come into force with effect from 1-3-1974. Therefore, the Tribunal has power to permit the tenant to amend the application filed in Form 7 seeking occupancy rights for valid and sufficient reasons. Similarly, sub-section (6) of Section 48-A, has been introduced along with proviso which read as under: "(6) The order of the Tribunal under this section shall be final and the Tribunal shall send a copy of every order passed by it to the Tahsildar and the parties concerned: Provided that the Tribunal may, on the application of any of the parties, for reasons to be recorded in writing, correct any clerical or arithmetical mistakes in any order passed by it: Provided further that the Tribunal may on its own or on the application of any of the parties, for reasons to be recorded in writing correct the extent of land in any order passed by it after causing actual measurement and after giving an opportunity of being heard to the concerned parties." 12. Thus, it is clear that the Tribunal is also conferred with power and jurisdiction to correct any clerical or arithmetical mistakes in any order passed by it for reasons to be recorded in writing and also to correct the extent of land after causing actual measurement and after giving an opportunity to the concerned parties. 13. Thus, it is clear that the Tribunal is also conferred with power and jurisdiction to correct any clerical or arithmetical mistakes in any order passed by it for reasons to be recorded in writing and also to correct the extent of land after causing actual measurement and after giving an opportunity to the concerned parties. 13. The question that has cropped up in this case is, whether the tenant could have been permitted to substitute another survey number i.e., Sy. No. 138/IB measuring 80 cents in place of Sy. No. 22/4 measuring 66 cents. The contention of the tenant is, that due to illiteracy and ignorance, he had committed the mistake in mentioning a wrong survey number. 14. The judgment of the Division Bench in Pakeera Moolya's case lays down, after considering the scope of the power of the Tribunal under Section 48-A of the Act, that permission to amend Form 7 to include a claim for another survey number, if any land was omitted in the original application, after expiry of period of limitation would be impermissible because that would tantamount to making a new claim in respect of a new item. However, if any claim had been made in respect of any land which was identified but any discrepancy in the application with regard to description of the property had arisen the same can be permitted by way of amendment, so that the property can be easily recognised. Thus, the law laid down by the Division Bench makes it dear that a claim for new survey number made after the period of limitation, by way of amendment is impermissible. But, if it is a case of correcting a bona fide error in mentioning the survey number by properly describing the same so as to identify it correctly by removing any ambiguity, then such correction which will not tantamount to introducing a new survey number in the claim could be permitted. 15. In the instant case, in the Form 7 filed, the tenant has mentioned the survey number and its extent. He has not mentioned the boundaries of the survey number. The extent of the land bearing Sy. No. 22/4 is mentioned as 66 cents. Petitioners have purchased the land bearing Sy. No. 138/IB measuring 80 cents during the year 1975. If the tenant is able to establish that there was a bona fide mistake in mentioning Sy. He has not mentioned the boundaries of the survey number. The extent of the land bearing Sy. No. 22/4 is mentioned as 66 cents. Petitioners have purchased the land bearing Sy. No. 138/IB measuring 80 cents during the year 1975. If the tenant is able to establish that there was a bona fide mistake in mentioning Sy. No. 22/4 measuring 66 cents instead of Sy. No. 138/IB measuring 80 cents while filing the claim in Form 7 on 21-12-1974, then he would fall within the parameters of the judgment of the Division Bench, otherwise he will not. There is absolutely nothing to show-how the tenant was misled to mention Sy. No. 22/4 measuring 66 cents instead of Sy. No. 138/IB measuring 80 cents. Neither the measurement nor the survey number have anything in common with each other. This is not a case where a mistake has been committed in mentioning the sub-number or some typographical error has crept in or there is any ambiguity regarding mentioning of survey number. This is a case where the claimant-tenant comes forward to say that he wants to claim Sy. No. 138/IB measuring 80 cents in place of Sy. No. 22/4 measuring 60 cents which according to him, was wrongly mentioned at the time when the application was filed. In the absence of any material to establish that there was such a mistake in mentioning the wrong survey number while filing the application, such request could not have been entertained by the Tribunal, as it would tantamount to permitting the petitioner to lay a claim for a new land after the cut-off date i.e., 30-6-1979. 16. The time for filing the application was extended by five years from 1-3-1974 to 30-6-1979. In the instant case, tenant has not sought for amendment of the claim at the time when the first order was passed in the year 1981 i.e., on 24-9-1981. Petitioners' father being the purchaser of the land in respect of which no claim had been made seeking occupancy rights was constrained to file writ petition before this Court in W.P. No. 5929 of 1983 challenging the grant of occupancy rights in respect of Sy. No. 138/IB. Petitioners' father being the purchaser of the land in respect of which no claim had been made seeking occupancy rights was constrained to file writ petition before this Court in W.P. No. 5929 of 1983 challenging the grant of occupancy rights in respect of Sy. No. 138/IB. This Court vide its order dated 3-1-1985 passed in W.P. No. 5929 of 1983 held that the order of the Tribunal was wholly illegal and without jurisdiction as the claimant did not claim occupancy rights in respect of Sy. No. 138/IB while filing Form 7. It is for this reason, the order of the Tribunal was quashed only insofar as this land was concerned. No doubt, liberty was given to the tenant to seek amendment of his application in Form 7, but that could only be regarded as liberty reserved in accordance with law to seek amendment or to permit amendment. 17. As already adverted to above by introducing the present survey number in the place of old survey number the tenant is trying to lay a new claim in respect of altogether new survey number. There is no confusion with regard to the survey number or their measurement. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was a bona fide mistake on the part of the tenant in claiming occupancy rights in respect of a wrong survey number i.e., Sy. No. 22/4 measuring 60 cents instead of Sy. No. 138/IB measuring 80 cents. Reliance placed by the learned Senior Counsel on sub-sections (3) and (6) of Section 48-A of the Act, to contend that there is no limitation on the power of the Tribunal to permit such amendment cannot be accepted. 18. It is not in dispute that the cut-off date was fixed enabling the tenants to claim occupancy in respect of the tenanted land by filing Form 7 under Section 48-A of the Act. That cut-off date was extended upto 30-6-1979. If such claims to introduce new survey number or to substitute different survey number in the place of other survey number is permitted, it would result in serious injustice and prejudice apart from resulting in violating the mandate of the Legislature in fixing the cut-off date. The injustice and prejudice may occur in the manner in which it is happened in the instant case. Petitioner has purchased this property in the year 1975. The injustice and prejudice may occur in the manner in which it is happened in the instant case. Petitioner has purchased this property in the year 1975. As on the date he purchased the property, there was no claim made in respect of this land seeking occupancy rights against the vendor of the writ petitioner. Therefore, there was no impediment for the vendor of the petitioner to sell this property. After the petitioner purchased the land, the Tribunal has passed the order on 24-9-1981, wherein no doubt, petitioner herein had entered appearance by filing an application to implead himself and by resisting the claim in respect of the land in question which he had purchased. 19. Respondent 1 has been granted occupancy rights in respect of as many as four lands. Hence, I am of the view that to permit amendment of the claim so as to include claim for occupancy rights in respect of Sy. No. 138/IB, which is purchased by the petitioner, would seriously affect the interest of the petitioner. The attempt made by the tenant does not disclose that he was intending to correct a bona fide mistake. There was no foundation laid to show that the mistake had occurred on account of any ambiguity in the claim. 20. Insofar as reliance placed by the learned Senior Counsel on the judgments in the case of Padmaraja Athikari v. Land Tribunal, Karkal in W.P. No. 20080 of 1991 disposed of on 15-7-1993, it has to be noticed that it was a case where the writ petition filed by the landowner came to be rejected on the ground of delay and laches. In the course of dismissal of the writ petition, the Court had observed that though the claimant may mention wrong numbers in Form 7, the Tribunal has got jurisdiction to verify and ascertain the correctness of the numbers because possibility of mentioning wrong numbers cannot be ruled out since Form 7 would be filed by the villagers who might be illiterates and ignorants. 21. The subsequent judgment in Pakeera Moolya's case disposed of on 2-2-1994 precisely deals with the point of law raised regarding the scope of Section 48-A(3) of the Act. After detailed discussion of facts, the law has been laid down in paragraph 9 of the said judgment, which reads as under: "9. 21. The subsequent judgment in Pakeera Moolya's case disposed of on 2-2-1994 precisely deals with the point of law raised regarding the scope of Section 48-A(3) of the Act. After detailed discussion of facts, the law has been laid down in paragraph 9 of the said judgment, which reads as under: "9. It is no doubt true that tenants and landlords who reside in rural areas may not be fully aware of particulars of land entered in revenue records. The time for filing applications was extended by five years from 1-3-1974 to 30-6-1979 and by which time there was at least one round of litigation or another and enough time to find out particulars of lands thereof. The argument of ignorance of litigants therefore does not appeal to us because for a person of diligence five years is a very long period to set right all discrepancies of substantial nature. Although in an application several items of lands may be included claiming occupancy rights, the claim in respect of each one of the lands mentioned therein is a separate claim. Understood thus, a claim must be made in respect of a land that he is a tenant and seek for registration of occupancy rights in his favour. If any land is omitted in the original application and after the expiry of the period of limitation it will not be permissible to amend such an application to include new item of land is very clear because that would amount to making a new claim in respect of a new item. If any claim had been made in respect of any land which is identifiable any discrepancy in the application is in regard to description of a property, amendment may be made so that the property can be easily recognised. Making new claim in respect of a new item of land is introducing new cause of action as is ordinarily understood. Indeed, the scope of amendment of pleadings in such cases has been succinctly explained by the Supreme Court in A.K. Gupta and Sons Limited v. Damodar Valley Corporation, AIR 1967 SC 96 , that the expression 'cause of action' in that context does not mean every fact which is material to be proved to entitle the plaintiff to succeed. The expression only means a new claim made on a new basis constituted by new facts. The expression only means a new claim made on a new basis constituted by new facts. In the present case where claims have been made in respect of certain items of land which are not part of the original application at all must be treated new claims giving rise to new cause of action and such a course is not permissible at all particularly in the light of Section 48-A(8) of the Act. With respect we agree with the view expressed in Seethadevi v. Narayana Kamath, 1987 (2) Kar. L.J. 89 and there is no reason to make a departure from that view expressed by this Court earlier. The consent of a party also cannot confer jurisdiction on the Tribunal. When the Tribunal could not adjudicate on the claim of tenant in respect of certain lands as not having formed part of original claim and amendment carried out after expiry of period of limitation to make claims, no grant could be made in that regard. The Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction in granting amendment of Form 7 in regard to lands comprised in Survey Numbers 13/3 and 13/2C measuring 5 cents and 2 cents. The order made by the Tribunal in regard to lands comprised in Survey Numbers 13/3, 13/2C, 33/2, 33/3, 13/2A shall stand quashed. In other respects the order of the Tribunal cannot be disturbed." 22. It is thus clear from the law laid down by the Division Bench that power to permit amendment to the claim, in respect of any land, which was identifiable but some discrepancy in the application with regard to its description had been found, could be exercised, so that the property could be easily recognised and not making a new claim in respect of new item which would tantamount to introducing new cause of action. The judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of A.K. Gupta and Sons Limited v. Damodar Valley Corporation, AIR 1967 SC 96 has been referred to by the Division Bench in this connection. The judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of A.K. Gupta and Sons Limited v. Damodar Valley Corporation, AIR 1967 SC 96 has been referred to by the Division Bench in this connection. Reference can be also useful made to the judgment in the case of R. Rudraiah and Another v. State of Karnataka and Others, AIR 1998 SC 1070 wherein in paragraphs 18 and 19, the Apex Court has held dealing with the principle of interpretation of statutes that plain or grammatical construction which leads to injustice or absurdity is to be avoided and that the application filed by the claimant under Section 45 on 7-3-1984 long after 30-6-1979 was barred by Section 48-A of the Act. In this connection, the Apex Court in paragraph 18, has held that 'fixing of period of limitation must always be to some extent arbitrary and may frequently result in hardship. But, in construing such provisions, equitable considerations are out of place, and the strict grammatical meaning of the words is the only safe guide (Sir Dinshaw Mulla in Nagendra Nath Dey v. Suresh Chandra Dey, AIR 1932 PC 165 ).' 23. In the light of the above, I am of the view that neither on the basis of evidence available, nor based on the reasons assigned by the Tribunal, it can be held that the tenant was intending to remove any ambiguity or make an effort to describe the land properly to remove any confusion. This was a case where the tenant was trying to delete the claim made in respect of one survey number by introducing altogether another survey number, particularly in the background that the very survey number which was sought to be introduced in the claim had been already sold by the previous owner in favour of the present petitioner. Therefore, the Tribunal had no power or jurisdiction under such circumstances to allow the amendment. 24. Therefore, the Tribunal had no power or jurisdiction under such circumstances to allow the amendment. 24. Though reliance has been placed by the learned Senior Counsel on the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge or this Court in W.P. No. 20080 of 1991, in view of the ratio laid down in Pakeera Moohja's case which has application to the facts of the present case, the binding precedent in Pakeera Moolya's case cannot be overlooked merely because in a different circumstance, a learned Single Judge of this Court has taken a view that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to permit amendment to correct the mistake committed in mentioning the survey number. While there cannot be any dispute with regard to the power of the Tribunal to correct such mistake, but the question in the instant case is, whether there was any such mistake bona fide in laying a claim in respect of a particular survey number by the claimant, who has not shown why he did not file the application in respect of Sy. No. 138/IB. Hence, the order of the Tribunal is unsustainable. 25. This writ petition is allowed. Impugned order is set aside.