ORDER : Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the contesting respondents and the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate. 2. The petitioners claim to be landlords and are before this court being aggrieved by the order dated 23.09.2011 passed by the Land Tribunal, Mangalore Taluk, Dakshina Kannada. 3. The brief facts which are necessary for disposal of the writ petition are that: Mother of respondents No.1 and 4 the late Oovamma had filed Form No.7 before the Land Tribunal which is produced and marked as Annexure-B and Form No.7 filed by the first respondent M. Nagesh S/o late Oovamma is produced and marked as Annexure-C. On perusal of Annexure-B, the Form No.7 filed by late Oovamma, it is seen that she has claimed tenancy rights over several survey numbers i.e. 110/1, 108/1A, 110/6 of Kadri B Village and Survey No.6/20 and 6/2A of Kanakanady B Village. The first respondent son has filed Form No.7. In his Form No.7 he has requested for registering him as a tenant in respect of the land comprised in Survey No.108/1A. Pursuant to the applications spot mahazar was also conducted and in the spot mahazar the mother of the first respondent late Oovamma was found to be in occupation of the lands comprised in Survey No.1081A1/3, 1081A2/A and 1106A/1, 62C and 62A1 only. Whereas, the claim was in respect of 1101, 1081A, 1106, 62C, 62A. Pursuant to the report an enquiry was conducted and after appreciating the material on record, the land tribunal was pleased to accept and confer occupancy rights on the late Oovamma in respect of the lands comprised in Sy. No.1081A1 (41 cents), 1081A2 (28 cents), Survey No.1106A (25 cents) only. In respect of the claim over the lands in Sy. No.62C and 62A1 the land tribunal directed that the same be forwarded to the other tribunal. This order dated 14.10.1980 was not called in question by either of the parties and the same has attained finality. That in the year 2009 an application came to be preferred by the legal representatives of late Oovamma stating that in the declaration contained in Form No.7, the late Oovamma had sought for conferment of occupancy rights in respect of 110/1, 108/1A and 110/6 of Kadri village. That while granting the application the tribunal has granted occupancy rights in Sy. No.1081A1, 1081A2 and 1106A. That while granting the application the tribunal has granted occupancy rights in Sy. No.1081A1, 1081A2 and 1106A. That on account of a mistake that has crept in, the tribunal has erroneously described Sy. No.110/1 as Survey No.1081A2 of Kadri village and hence sought for rectification of order and prayed that the survey No.1081A2 be read as Sy. No.110/1. The said application came to be stoutly resisted by the petitioners landlord. Detailed and several grounds have been raised by the landlords objecting to the application and prayed the same be rejected. The land tribunal after consideration has been pleased to pass the impugned order dated 23.09.2011 whereby, it has been pleased to accept the application and has ordered as under: Other language Aggrieved by the same, the instant writ petition is preferred. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the tribunal is not vested with any power to review or modify its order and that once the order is passed, the tribunal is rendered functus officio except to the extent of carrying out correction of certain errors as is permitted under the statute. The learned counsel would submit that once the tribunal has refused to grant or even if the tribunal has merely omitted to not recognize the tenancy of the claimant, the same has to be construed as a rejection. In this regard the learned counsel for the petitioners would place reliance on the order of the Division Bench rendered in W.P. No.3960/1989. The Division Bench in para 3 has held as under: “3. The claim of the petitioner was the subject matter of the proceedings before the Tribunal and when an order was passed on 5182 the petitioner cannot pretend that he is not aware of the order made by the Tribunal now. When the claim is made not only in respect of the land for grant of occupancy rights which has been registered but also in respect of other land in relation to which the relief was not granted, it must be held that such a claim had been rejected. When larger claim is made and small relief is granted it would mean that part of claims has been rejected even though the order made may not be specific in that regard.” 5. He would further contend that the attempt after a delay of nearly 30 years ought not have been appreciated. When larger claim is made and small relief is granted it would mean that part of claims has been rejected even though the order made may not be specific in that regard.” 5. He would further contend that the attempt after a delay of nearly 30 years ought not have been appreciated. That the land tribunal could not have also granted the occupancy rights in the manner it has now chosen to do so. He would submit that unless and until land stands stood vested in the State, the tribunal is divested of any jurisdiction to recognize and confer any occupancy rights. He would submit that, the parties having slept over the orders, could not have attempted to do indirectly what they were unable to achieve directly. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents would submit that it is a mere clerical error and that the tribunal is empowered to correct the same and such a power is vested in the tribunal under the provisions of Section 48A(6) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (for short ‘Land Reforms Act’) which reads as under: “48A.EnquirybytheTribunal,etc.– Xxx (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.” The first proviso to Section 48A(6) reads as under:: “[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.]” and the second proviso to Section 48A(6) reads as under: “[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.]” 7. From a reading of the above, it is apparent that no power of review is vested in the tribunal and the only corrections that are permitted under the two provisos are; correction of any clerical or arithmetical mistakes or the correction of the extent of the land in question. From a reading of the above, it is apparent that no power of review is vested in the tribunal and the only corrections that are permitted under the two provisos are; correction of any clerical or arithmetical mistakes or the correction of the extent of the land in question. Thus the only three errors which the tribunal is empowered to correct are: (i) An arithmetical error (ii) A clerical error or (iii) An error pertaining to the extent of the land in question. 8. In the instant case, the tribunal has changed the very survey number. The learned counsel would submit that the omission to grant occupancy rights in Sy. No.110/1 has to be viewed as a clerical error. The said contention requires to be rejected at the threshold. If the said contention is accepted, it virtually vitiates the entire order of the tribunal. The act of the Tribunal can by no stretch of imagination be construed as a clerical act. The tribunal acts as a quasijudicial body and the order is passed in discharge of it’s functions. Hence, the said contention stands rejected. 9. On a reading of the impugned order, it is apparent that the tribunal has ventured to review its own order. It is not in doubt that the tribunal is devoid of any power of review and the tribunal could not have exercised a power that was not vested in it. The learned counsel for the respondent would place reliance on the ruling of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Honnamma and Ors. V. Nanjundaiah (D) by L.Rs. and Ors, (2008 AIR SCW 2787) wherein, the Hon’ble Apex Court has been pleased to hold that “mere misdescription of property in Form No.7 would not be hit by the embargo placed by Act with regard to filing application before cut off date.” 10. As noted supra, it is not a case of misdescription or even a misdeclaration. In fact, the mother of respondents No.1 and 4, the late Oovamma has categorically asserted her right in Form No.7 Annexure-B over the land comprised in Sy. As noted supra, it is not a case of misdescription or even a misdeclaration. In fact, the mother of respondents No.1 and 4, the late Oovamma has categorically asserted her right in Form No.7 Annexure-B over the land comprised in Sy. No.110/1 but the said claim has been found not to be correct during the spot inspection held by the revenue authorities vide Annexure-E. In fact, under Annexure-E itself the claim has lost its basis wherein the revenue authorities after spot mahazar and enquiry have found that the late Oovamma was not in possession or in other words, tilling the lands comprised in Sy. No.110/1, and thereafter after enquiry the order dated 14.10.1980 conferring the occupancy rights in and over certain lands, excluding Sy. No.110/1, came to be passed. 11. In that view of the matter, the present contention, that the failure to grant occupancy rights over Sy. No.110/1 is on account of a clerical error cannot be accepted. In fact, in the light of the judgment of the Division Bench as noted supra, if the land tribunal has failed to grant or consider the claim over a particular land, such omission amounts to or is akin to an implied refusal to grant the same. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioners has also placed reliance on the ruling of a coordinate Bench of this court rendered by his lordship Justice Shri. S. Abdul Nazeer (as he then was). Reliance is placed on the observations in paragraph 11. Yet again it is the case of misdescription of the survey number in the application and a coordinate Bench has held that mere misdescription would not be an embargo on a tribunal to conduct an enquiry in respect of the land over which the tenant was actually exercising his rights. 13. In the case on hand, it is not claimed as a mistake or misdescription by the tenant, but a mistake in the order by the Tribunal. Assuming it is a case of misdescription or mistake the same could not have been corrected by the tribunal in exercise of its jurisdiction, under the first or second proviso to Section 48A(6) of the Land Reforms Act, which clearly obviates any detailed discussion with regard to the scope and ambit of the power that can be exercised by the tribunal in respect of the orders that have already been passed. The first proviso provides for correction of only clerical or arithmetical mistake and the second proviso is correction of the extent of the land. It is not a case that falls within the above three exceptions. 14. In that view of the matter, the writ petition deserves to be allowed and is accordingly, allowed. The order under challenge at Annexure-A is quashed. There shall be no order as to costs.