CONFUSION IN FORM 1 OR FORM 7 APPLICATION TO CLAIM TENANCY IN INAM LANDS IS LONG BACK CLARIFIED

A.C. Anantha Swamy And Another vs State Of Karnataka And Others ILR 1998 KAR 3089, 1998 (5) KarLJ 480 The allied issue is the question as to whether Form No. 1 is condition precedent for the Special Deputy Commissioner to exercise jurisdiction. It is a familiar situation that often arises before Courts and judicial forums, that even if the type of proceeding instituted turns out to be erroneous that the Court has the power to direct corrective action because it comes within the doctrine of curability. It is in this background that I need to point out that as far as the respondents are concerned, that they had filed the requisite Form No. 7 and I also understand that it was filed within the prescribed period. Had they filed Form No. 1 instead of filing Form No. 7 at that point of time they would have still been within time and having regard to the fact that they are now virtually redirected to the correct forum it would only mean that it is a corrective action and in this background, the non-filing of the Form No. 1 will not in any way affect the validity of the proceeding before the Special Deputy Commissioner. On the contrary, Form No. 7 filed by the petitioners will have to be deemed to be analogous to the Form No. 1 which they would have otherwise filed had they gone to that authority in the first instance. I need to clarify this aspect of the law because I do not want a situation whereby obstacles will be raised in the way of the decision of the case before the Special Deputy Commissioner because this litigation has gone on for long enough and it is high time that it is disposed of.