Revisional Jurisdiction U/S.56 Of Karnataka Land Revenue Act Is To Be Exercised Within Three Years: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court was considering the appeals pertaining to a re-enquiry notice issued in the year 2014 by the Joint Director/Registrar of Land Records.
While quashing a re-enquiry notice issued in the year 2014 by the Joint Director/Registrar of Land Records, the Supreme Court has clarified that there is a clear mandate as to the time frame within which revisional jurisdiction is to be exercised under Section 56 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, and the same is three years.
The Apex Court was considering two appeals arising out of a judgment passed by a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court.
The Division Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva held, “Given this settled legal position, we may note that we are not dealing with a situation where no limitation has been prescribed. On the other hand, there is a clear mandate as to the time frame within which revisional jurisdiction is to be exercised, viz., three years. Further, not only was the land in question purchased by the predecessor-in-interest of the present appellants as long back as in the year 1929, it was also conferred the status of private property by allotting specific CTS numbers in the year 1974. Thereafter, the authorities concerned deemed it appropriate to grant him sanction and permission to construct a residential apartment building and also allowed the same to be occupied. Third-party interests, therefore, came into existence long prior to the issuance of the subject notice under Section 56(1) of the Act of 1964.”
Factual Background
A writ petition was filed by one M.R.R. Setty (deceased first appellant) assailing the Notice issued by the Joint Director/Registrar of Land Records, City Survey, South Zone, K.R. Circle, Bengaluru, in exercise of power under Section 56 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 directing the Enquiry Officer, City Survey, Team-3, Bengaluru, to decide the case by holding a re-enquiry with respect to some Survey lands with verification of the record of rights of the private parties on the basis of the original survey records of Yediyur Lake region.
The notice was issued at the behest of one L. Shankaralingaiah, who complained that Yediyur Lake was being encroached upon by members of the public. Setty claimed to be the owner of an extent of land admeasuring 28 guntas, asserting that he had purchased under eight different sale deeds executed in the year 1929. In the year 2004, he applied for development of the said land by constructing a residential apartment building, under the name and style of Gokul Lake View. The Municipal Corporation sanctioned his construction plan. The impugned notice came to be issued in 2014, cancelling the earlier Enquiry Officer’s order and proposing to hold an enquiry afresh into the nature of the land held by M.R.R. Setty and several others.
Setty and others filed writ petitions assailing the aforesaid notice. The writ petitions were allowed. The authorities of the Government of Karnataka, including the Joint Director/Registrar of Land Records, filed a batch of writ appeals which came to be allowed. Setty filed a Review Petition which was dismissed. Assailing these two orders, Setty approached the Apex Court. The operation and implementation of the impugned judgment was stayed by the Apex Court. During the pendency of these cases, Setty expired, and his widow and two sons came on record as his legal representatives.
Reasoning
Referring to the provisions of the Act, the Bench explained that once the proviso to Section 56(3) stipulated in categorical terms that the power of revision under Section 56(1) could be exercised in respect of an order, against which no appeal has been preferred, at any time within three years from the date of such order, the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963, could not be smuggled in to negate and defeat the limitation prescribed in the afore-stated proviso.
The Bench further asserted that Section 24 notifies Revenue Officers, not below the rank of a Tahsildar, while exercising power under the Act of 1964 or under any other law in force to enquire into or to decide any question arising for determination between the State Government and any person or between parties to any proceedings, to be a ‘Revenue Court’. “However, the allotment of CTS numbers by a Revenue/Survey Officer in the year 1974 cannot be equated with exercise of power by a Revenue Court under Section 24, as it was not a determination of any question arising between the State Government and any other person or between parties to any proceedings. It was merely an administrative exercise undertaken by such Revenue/Survey Officer and was not quasi-judicial in nature. Therefore, the amended Section 25 and its proviso are of no avail to the Government”, it added.
Considering that there is a clear embargo on the exercise of revisionary power in relation to an order, which was not appealed against, beyond the period of three years from the date of such order, the Bench held that the very invocation of such power by the Joint Director/Registrar of Land Records was without any mooring in the statute. “The exercise being vitiated in its very inception, the Division Bench was not justified in opining that, as no adverse order had been passed yet, the learned Judge ought not to have interfered. Requiring M.R.R. Setty or his successors-in-interest to participate in such an enquiry, based on invocation of power well beyond the prescribed limitation, cannot be sustained and the learned Judge was, therefore, fully justified in interfering with the notice and in allowing the writ petitions”, it added.
Thus, allowing the appeals and setting aside the common judgment in so far as it pertained to the writ appeal along with the order dismissing the Review Petition, the Bench ordered, “In consequence, the Notice dated 26.04.2014 shall stand quashed in so far as it pertains to the land of the appellants.”
Cause Title: M.R.R. Setty (Dead), by LRs v. Government of Karnataka and others (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 944)
s