Supreme Court of India· 02 September 2026
Whether the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 56 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, on the basis of a complaint made by a third party, was sustainable in the light of the limitation prescribed therein?
M.R.R. Setty (Dead), by LRs v. Government of Karnataka and others
2026 INSC 944
Coram: Justice Sanjay Kumar · Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva
Answer
No. The proviso to Section 56(3) permits a Revenue Officer or Survey Officer to exercise the power of revision in respect of an order against which no appeal has been preferred only at any time within three years from the date of the order sought to be revised. Here the City Title Survey numbers were allotted in 1974 and the notice was issued in 2014, so the very invocation of such power was without any mooring in the statute and the exercise was vitiated in its very inception.
Headnote
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)
In the Court's own words
Paragraph 9The issue boils down to whether the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 56 of the Act of 1964 by the Joint Director/Registrar of Land Records, on the basis of a complaint made by a third party, was sustainable in the the light of the limitation prescribed therein. Section 56 of the Act of 1964 is titled ‘Power of revision’. Section 56(1) empowers the Tribunal or authorized Revenue/Survey Officer to call for and examine the records of any enquiry or proceeding of any subordinate officer under the Act of 1964 or under Section 54 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself, as the case may be, as to the legality or propriety of the proceedings of such officer. Section 56(2) enables the Tribunal or the aforestated Revenue/Survey Officer to pass such order as may be deemed fit, if it appears that any decision, order or proceeding so called for should be modified, annulled or reversed. The proviso thereto requires notice to be served upon the parties interested and an opportunity being given to them of being heard before any order is modified, annulled or reversed. Section 56(3) stipulates that no application for revision under the Section 56 and no power of revision on such application shall be exercised against any order in respect of which an appeal has been preferred and no application for revision shall be entertained unless such application is presented within a period of four months from the date of such order. The proviso thereto is of significance presently and it reads as under:- ‘Provided that any Revenue Officer or Survey Officer referred to in sub-section (1) may exercise power under this section in respect of any order against which no appeal has been preferred under this Chapter, at any time within three years from the date of the order sought to be revised.’
Paragraph 16In the light of the clear embargo on exercise of such 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 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. The Division Bench erred in holding to the contrary and the same was compounded by the other Bench by rejecting the review petition.
Acts & Sections
s.56(3) Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964s.56(1) Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964s.52 Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964s.25 Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964s.24 Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964One 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.
Create my free accountFree forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India
Open the full judgment →