Click the Play button to listen to article

The Supreme Court on Wednesday (September 2) observed that the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 cannot be invoked to negate the limitation period  provided in the Karnataka Land Revenue Act.

A bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva heard a matter wherein the Karnataka Government's land record authority, acting under its revisional powers, directed a fresh enquiry into land survey numbers in the Yediyur Lake area of Bengaluru, beyond the three-year limitation prescribed under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (“Act”).

The state government defended the move citing the applicability of the delay condonation provision of the Limitation Act applying mutatis mutandis to the appeals filed under the Act. Rejecting this argument, the Court observed that the question was not about the filing of an appeal under the Act, but exercising of the revision powers under the Act, whose proviso to Section 56(3) prescribes only three years limitation for exercising the revisional jurisdiction by the authority.

“We are at a loss to understand as to how this provision[for delay condonation as per S.5 Limitation Act] aids the case of the Government. It has no application in the present scenario, as we are not dealing with appeals under the [Limitation ]Act of 1964, but with exercise of revisional power under Section 56 thereof…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 afore stated proviso.”, the Court observed.

The deceased appellant, represented by legal heirs, claimed ownership over 28 guntas of land in Bengaluru, purchased through eight sale deeds in 1929. During the 1974 City Title Survey, the land was assigned various CTS numbers. Decades later, Appellant obtained development permissions from the BBMP and constructed a residential apartment complex, for which an occupancy certificate was issued in 2006.

In 2014, nearly 40 years after the CTS numbers were assigned, the Joint Director/Registrar of Land Records issued a notice under Section 56 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, proposing a fresh enquiry into the CTS entries following a complaint alleging encroachment of Yediyur Lake.

Appellant challenged the notice before the Karnataka High Court. A Single Judge quashed the notice, holding that the revisional power under Section 56 could not be exercised beyond the statutory three-year limitation.

The Division Bench reversed the Single Judge's decision in January 2020 and permitted the authorities to conduct a fresh enquiry. Appellant's review petition was subsequently dismissed in June 2023, following which he approached the Supreme Court. During the pendency of the proceedings, Appellant died in December 2024 and his legal representatives were brought on record.

Allowing the appeal, the judgment authored by Justice Sanjay Kumar observed that the Division Bench of the High Court erred in reversing the Single Bench decision which quashed the re-enquiry notice in to the survey numbers.

“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. 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.”, the Court observed.

As a result, the appeal was allowed, thereby quashing the Notice insofar as it pertained to the land of the appellants.

Cause Title: M.R.R. Setty (Dead), by LRs Versus Government of Karnataka and others

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 889

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) : Dr. Devashish Bharuka, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ravi Bharuka, AOR Mr. Saurav Kumar, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prateek Chadha, A.A.G. Ms. Rooh-e-hina Dua, AOR Mr. Sreekar Aechuri, Adv. Ms. Shrutika Garg, Adv. Mr. Raghvendra M. Kulkarni, Adv. Mr. Hemanth Kumar J., Adv. Mr. Abhishek Mate, Adv. Ms. Uditha Chakravarthy, Adv. Mr. Abhay Singh Yadav, Adv. Mr. Ankur S. Kulkarni, AOR

Tags: