Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 – s.56 – MRR claimed to be the owner of an extent of land admeasuring 28 guntas in Survey No.2 of Dasarahalli Village – According to him, he purchased the extent land under eight different sale deeds executed in the year 1929 – He applied for development of the said land by constructing a residential apartment building – The municipal corporation, sanctioned his construction plan – Upon completion, occupancy certificate was given – The impugned notice came to be issued on 26.04.2014 cancelling the earlier Enquiry Officer’s order and proposing to hold an enquiry afresh into the nature of the land held by MRR and others, on the strength of a complaint made by a third party who alleged that Yediyur Lake was being encroached upon by members of the public, including MRR – Writ petitions were filed by MRR and others assailing the aforestated notice dated 26.04.2014 and an issue was raised that the revisional jurisdiction exercised by the Joint Director/Registrar of Land Records was completely time-barred, in terms of the limitation prescribed under the proviso to s.56(3) of the Act of 1964 – The writ petitions were allowed – However, the Division Bench of the High Court held that allowing the writ petitions on the ground of delay without going into the merits was unjustified – The Review Petition filed against the same was dismissed – Correctness: Held: 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 predecessorin-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 u/s.56(1) of the Act of 1964 – In 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 – Requiring MRR 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 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 – In consequence, the Notice dated 26.04.2014 shall stand quashed in so far as it pertains to the land of the appellants. [Paras 15-17]
Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 – s.56 – Power of Revision: Held: s.56 of the Act of 1964 is titled ‘Power of revision’ – s.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 u/s.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 – s.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 – s.56(3) stipulates that no application for revision under the s.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. [Para 9]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.