Background
M.R.R. Setty (since deceased) claimed ownership of 28 guntas of land in Survey No. 2 of Dasarahalli Village, Bengaluru, purchased through sale deeds in 1929. In 1974, a City Title Survey allotted him CTS Nos. 174/1 to 174/5. In 2004–2006, he obtained building plan sanction, commenced construction of a residential apartment complex (“Gokul Lake View”), and was issued an Occupancy Certificate.
In 2014, on a third-party complaint alleging encroachment of Yediyur Lake, the Joint Director/Registrar of Land Records issued a notice under Section 56 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, cancelling the earlier Enquiry Officer’s order and directing a fresh enquiry into several CTS numbers, including those of the appellant.
A Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court quashed the notice as time-barred under the proviso to Section 56(3) (three-year limitation for suo motu revision). A Division Bench reversed this view, holding that a fresh enquiry was justified in public interest to protect the lake. A subsequent review petition was also dismissed. The legal heirs approached the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court’s Ruling
The appeals were allowed. The Division Bench judgment and the review order were set aside. The 2014 notice was quashed insofar as it related to the appellants’ land.
Key Holdings:
- Strict Limitation under Section 56(3)
The proviso to Section 56(3) clearly mandates that revisional power under Section 56(1) in respect of an unappealed order can be exercised only within three years from the date of the order sought to be revised. The 1974 CTS allotment was sought to be reopened after more than 35 years — an exercise wholly without statutory authority. - No Escape via Limitation Act or Inherent Powers
- Section 52 of the Act (application of certain provisions of the Limitation Act) does not apply to revisional proceedings under Section 56.
- The recently amended Section 25 (inherent powers of a Revenue Court) and its proviso are inapplicable, because the 1974 allotment of CTS numbers was a purely administrative act and not an exercise of power by a “Revenue Court” under Section 24.
- Settled Principle of Reasonable Time
Even where no limitation is prescribed, revisional/suo motu power must be exercised within a reasonable time (State of Gujarat v. Patil Raghav Natha, SEBI v. Sunil Krishna Khaitan, etc.). Here, a clear statutory period of three years existed and was grossly exceeded. Third-party rights (including occupancy of a completed residential building) had long crystallised. - Public Interest Argument Rejected
The Court rejected the Division Bench’s view that public interest in protecting Yediyur Lake could override the statutory bar of limitation. Once the power itself was exercised beyond the prescribed period, the entire exercise was vitiated at the inception.
Significance
The judgment strongly reaffirms that statutory limitation periods on revisional powers cannot be ignored in the name of public interest or protection of water bodies. Long-settled private titles and third-party rights created after due sanction by municipal authorities cannot be unsettled decades later through belated revisional notices.
CASE DETAILS:
- Case Title: M.R.R. Setty (Dead) by LRs v. Government of Karnataka & Ors.
- Civil Appeals arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 23954-23955 of 2023
- Citation: 2026 INSC 944
- Bench: Justices Sanjay Kumar & Sanjeev Sachdeva
- Date: 02 September 2026
Click HERE for full Judgment.
Lawcutor 