The Supreme Court has set aside a Karnataka High Court judgment and quashed a 2014 notice seeking a fresh inquiry into land records connected with Yediyur Lake in Bengaluru. The Court held that the revisional power under Section 56 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 could not be exercised beyond the statutory three-year period.
The judgment was delivered by a Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva on September 2, 2026.
Background of the Case
M.R.R. Setty had claimed ownership over 28 guntas of land purchased through eight sale deeds in 1929. During a City Title Survey conducted in 1974, the land was assigned CTS Nos. 174/1 to 174/5.
Decades later, Setty obtained permission to construct a residential apartment building, Gokul Lake View. The municipal authorities sanctioned the construction plan in 2004, permitted construction in 2005 and issued an Occupancy Certificate in June 2006.
In 2014, however, the Joint Director/Registrar of Land Records issued a notice under Section 56 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. The notice cancelled an earlier inquiry order and proposed a fresh inquiry into several City Survey numbers after a complaint alleging encroachment upon Yediyur Lake.
Setty challenged the notice, arguing that the revisional power was being invoked far beyond the statutory limitation period.
Court’s Observation
The Supreme Court focused on the proviso to Section 56(3), which permits revisional power to be exercised, where no appeal has been filed, within three years from the date of the order sought to be revised.
The Court rejected the Karnataka Government’s reliance on Section 52 of the Act and the Limitation Act, observing that those provisions could not be used to defeat the specific three-year period prescribed under Section 56.
“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, cannot be smuggled in to negate and defeat the limitation prescribed in the aforestated proviso.”
The Court also noted that the land had been treated as private property through the 1974 CTS allotment and that construction and occupancy had subsequently been permitted. Third-party interests had therefore arisen long before the 2014 notice.
Decision
The Supreme Court held that the revisional power had been invoked beyond the prescribed limitation period and was therefore unsustainable.
“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.”
The appeals were allowed. The Supreme Court set aside the Karnataka High Court’s 2020 judgment and the 2023 order dismissing the review petition. It further quashed the April 26, 2014 notice insofar as it concerned the appellants’ land.
The parties were directed to bear their own costs.
-300x169.webp)
