Can the Limitation Act, 1963 be invoked to extend the three-year period for revision under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964?

No. Section 52 of the Act of 1964 applies Sections 4, 5 and 12 of the Limitation Act, 1963 mutatis mutandis to appeals under that Act, and then only save as otherwise provided in the Act itself. Once the proviso to Section 56(3) stipulates in categorical terms that revisional power may be exercised within three years, the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 cannot be smuggled in to negate and defeat the limitation so prescribed.

Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 — s.56(3) proviso — s.56(1) — s.52 — s.25 — s.24 — Power of revision — Three-year limitation — Record of rights — City Title Survey numbers — Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 — s.56(3) proviso — Revision beyond three years — Power without mooring in the statute — Held: Revisional power over an order against which no appeal has been preferred may be exercised only within three years from the date of that order; invocation of the power decades later is without any mooring in the statute and vitiated in its very inception. (¶16) Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 — s.52 — Limitation Act, 1963 — Application confined to appeals — Held further: Section 52 applies Sections 4, 5 and 12 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to appeals alone. Those provisions cannot be smuggled in to negate and defeat the limitation prescribed by the proviso to Section 56(3). (¶11) Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 — s.24 — s.25 — Allotment of CTS numbers — Administrative, not quasi-judicial — Held further: Allotment of City Title Survey numbers by a Revenue/Survey Officer is merely an administrative exercise and not quasi-judicial; it cannot be equated with an order of a Revenue Court, so the amended Section 25 and its proviso are of no avail. (¶13) Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 — s.56(1) — Enquiry on a time-barred notice — Interference before any adverse order — On facts, held: A party cannot be required to participate in an enquiry founded on power invoked well beyond the prescribed limitation merely because no adverse order has yet been passed. Appeals allowed; the notice quashed. (¶16, 17)

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of M.R.R. Setty (Dead), by LRs v. Government of Karnataka and others — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India