The Supreme Court of India, comprising a Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva, has held that revenue authorities cannot initiate revisional proceedings under Section 56 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 beyond the statutorily prescribed three-year limitation period. Allowing the appeals, the Court set aside an order of the Karnataka High Court’s Division Bench that had permitted a fresh enquiry into lands allotted decades ago, ruling that initiating revision after an inordinate delay without statutory backing is impermissible.
Background of the Dispute
The dispute originated from a property measuring 28 guntas in Survey No. 2 of Dasarahalli Village, acquired by M.R.R. Setty through eight separate registered sale deeds in 1929. Decades later, during a City Title Survey in 1974, the property was assigned City Title Survey (CTS) Nos. 174/1 to 174/5.
In 2004, Setty applied to develop the land into a residential apartment complex named “Gokul Lake View.” The municipal authority, Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (later Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike), sanctioned the construction plan on July 8, 2004, and granted permission to commence construction on May 22, 2005. Following construction, the Joint Director of Town Planning issued an Occupancy Certificate on June 12/13, 2006.
On April 26, 2014—nearly four decades after the CTS numbers were assigned—the Joint Director/Registrar of Land Records, City Survey, South Zone, Bengaluru, issued a notice under Section 56 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. Acting on a complaint from a third party, L. Shankaralingaiah, alleging public encroachment upon the Yediyur Lake, the authority cancelled the earlier Enquiry Officer’s order regarding CTS No. 174 and ordered a re-enquiry covering multiple CTS plots, including Setty’s land, based on original lake survey records.
Setty and other affected landholders challenged the notice before the Karnataka High Court in Writ Petition No. 35210 of 2014, contending that the proceedings were barred by limitation under the proviso to Section 56(3) of the Act of 1964. A Single Judge allowed the petition on July 22, 2015, holding that the revisional authority lacked jurisdiction to initiate proceedings after an expiry of 35 years.
However, on January 9, 2020, a Division Bench of the High Court reversed the decision in Writ Appeal No. 6405 of 2017, ruling that because lake encroachment had been alleged and no adverse order was yet passed, the delay did not bar an enquiry to uncover the truth. A subsequent review petition filed by Setty was dismissed on June 16, 2023. Setty then appealed to the Supreme Court. Following his death in December 2024, his legal representatives were brought on record to pursue the appeals.
Submissions of the State Government
Defending the Division Bench’s ruling, counsel appearing for the Government of Karnataka argued that Section 52 of the Act of 1964 makes the provisions of Sections 4, 5, and 12 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applicable mutatis mutandis.
The State further relied upon the Karnataka Land Revenue (Amendment) Act, 2025, which amended Section 25 regarding the inherent powers of a Revenue Court to prevent “or to correct” the abuse of process. The State contended that the newly inserted proviso to Section 25 permitted review upon the discovery of new and important evidence not previously within the knowledge of the Revenue Court.
Analysis of the Court
The Supreme Court rejected both contentions of the State Government. Addressing Section 52, Justice Sanjay Kumar noted that it applies exclusively to appeals, not to revisional powers 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.”
Regarding the amendment to Section 25, the Court observed that under Section 24 of the Act, Revenue Officers function as a “Revenue Court” when adjudicating disputes between the State and a person or between contesting parties. In contrast, the 1974 allotment of CTS numbers was merely an administrative exercise and not quasi-judicial, rendering the amended Section 25 inapplicable.
The Court reviewed earlier landmark precedents governing revisional powers exercised belatedly:
- In State of Gujarat vs. Patil Raghav Natha and others (1969), a three-judge Bench held that even where no limitation is prescribed for suo motu revisional power, it must be exercised within a reasonable time, depending on the nature of the order and the facts.
- In Securities and Exchange Board of India v. Sunil Krishna Khaitan and others (2023)—which reiterated principles from Mansaram vs. S.P. Pathak and others, Government of India vs. Citedal Fine Pharmaceuticals, Madras, and others, State of Orissa and others vs. Brundaban Sharma and another, and State of Punjab and others vs. Bhatinda District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd.—the Supreme Court affirmed that authorities cannot act indefinitely.
The Court highlighted the broader public interest principle underlying the doctrine of reasonable time:
“there is public interest involved in not taking up and spending time on stale matters and, therefore, exercise of power, even when no time is specified, should be done within reasonable time as it prevents miscarriage of justice, misuse and abuse of power as well as ensures that violation of the provisions are checked and penalised without delay, thereby effectuating the purpose behind the enactment.”
Applying these principles, the Bench observed that the statute contains an explicit three-year bar under the proviso to Section 56(3):
“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.”
The Court held that because the land had been private property since 1929, CTS numbers were assigned in 1974, and municipal sanctions and third-party rights followed, “the very invocation of such power by the Joint Director/Registrar of Land Records was without any mooring in the statute.” The Division Bench was held to have erred in directing the landowners to undergo an enquiry initiated wholly beyond jurisdiction.
Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the Karnataka High Court Division Bench’s common judgment dated January 9, 2020, and the review dismissal order dated June 16, 2023. Consequently, the impugned notice dated April 26, 2014 was quashed insofar as it pertained to the appellants’ land. The parties were directed to bear their own costs.
Case Title: M.R.R. Setty (Dead), by LRs Versus Government of Karnataka and others
Case No.: Civil Appeal Nos. & of 2026 (@SLP (C) Nos. 23954-23955 OF 2023)
Bench: Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva
Date: September 02, 2026
