By IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT SANGALORE DATED THIS THE 11™ DAY OF DECEMBER, 2006 BEFORE, THE HON’ BLE Mr. JUSTICE K.L.MANJUNATH WRIT PETITION No. 49828/2004_(RLR-R&S) BETWEEN: M.Ramakrishnappa s/o Jate M.Muniyapra, 60 years, R/o D.No.43, N.H.C.S., Kaveri Hagar, Bangalora-79. oe PETITIONER (By Advocate Swt.D.S.Prathibha for Sxi-K.V,Narasimhan) AND: 1 The Deputy Director of Land Records, Banyalore Division, K.R.Circle, Bangalore-1. 2. The Joint Director of Land Records, Bangalore Division, K.R.Circle, Bangalore-1. ee RESPONDENTS (By Sri.G.Chandrashekhar. AGA) This Writ Petition is filed under Arts.226 & 227 of the Constitution of India to quash Annexure-C dated 22.11.2004 issued by R-2 and any proceedings pursuant to it.This Petition is coming on for final hear, this day, the Court made the following: ORDER ne short question that arisex for ihe consideration of this court in this writ petition is whether suo mote powers vested under Sec.56 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act can be exercised by an authority beyond the period’ of three years. 2. Pelitioner is the owner of Sy.No.67 of Herohalli viltage, Yeshwanthapura Hobli, Bangalore North Taiuk. It is re-numbered as Sy.No.181 after durast. According to the petitioner, it is measuring 9-20 acres out of which 22 guntas is kharab. Durast was made as per Annexure-A on 8.1.1986. Land was surveyed on 21,9.1971 and it was assigned as new No.181. Durast has been acted upon and the petitioner has been enjoying the same as per Annexure-B. Suddenly, petitioner has received a notice as per Annexure-C dated 77.11.2004 calling upon the oe3 petitioner to appear before the Joint Director of Survey Settlement, Bangalore, contending that the suo motu proceedings are initiated considering the records of Durast and assigning new No.16i to Sy.No.67 and to find cut the difference of measurement. This notice is callea in question by the petitioner contending that R-2 has no power to initiate proceedings suo motu by invoking Sec.S6 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. . \ Heard the counsei tor both the parties. 4. According to the counsel for the petitioner, in view of proviso to sub-section (3) of Sec.56 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, suo motu powers ¢an be exercised either by the revenue officer o: by a survey officer referred to under sub-section(1) of Sec.56 of the Act within three years from the date of the order sought to be revised. According to the petitioner, durast and Pakka Podi work was completed on 20.7.1985, 19 ty+ years after R-2 would not get. any right to initiate suo motu proceedings. 5. According to the learned Govt. Advocate, limitation is prescribed under Sec.36 of the Land Revenue Act only if a revision is filed by a party and no limitation prescribed if suo motu proceedings are initiated by the authovities. Therefore, ha requests this court to dismiss the petition 5. Sec.56 of the Kariataka Land Revenue Act reads as hereundel: “Soc. 5¢-Fower of revision: (1) The Tribunal, any sevenue Officer not inferior in rank to an Assistant Commissioner, and any Survey Officer not inferior in rank to a Superintendent of Land Records or an Assistant Settlement Officer in their respective departments, may call for an examine the record of any inquiry or the proceedings of any subordinate officer under this Act [or under section 54 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908 (Central Act 5 of 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. {Bxplanatio section- For the purposes of this sub- roe5 w Special Deputy Commissicaer ahali be deemed to be not subordinate to the Deputy Commissioner; and (ii) All revenue officers shall be deemed to be subordinate to the. Tribunal}. (2) If, in any case, it shall eppear to the [Tribunal] or to = such - oj cer aforesaid, that any decision cr order to proceedings so called for should be modified, annulled, or reversed, [Tribunal] or such officer may pass such or¢er es may be deemed fit; provided that no order shall be modified, anndlied cr reversed unless notice has been served on the parties interested and opportunity given to them being heard. (3) No application, for revision under this section and no power of revision on such application shall be exercised against any order in respect of which an appeal under this chapter 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: Provided that any Revenue Officer or Survey Officer referred to in sub-section (4) 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.” From the reading & the above section, it is clear to this court that revenue officer or a survey officer referred to under sub~section(1) &6 of Sec.56 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act can initiate suo motu proceedinas within three years from the date of the order sought to be revised and if such power is to ba exercised 1¢ years after the Durast work, same has to be held as barred by time ard suo motu proceedings can be initiated exercising revisional powers. Therefore, this court is of the opinion that Joint Director ef land Records, Rangalore, has commiited a serious error in invoking revisional powers 19 years after the orders of the Deputy Director of Land Records and the order passed by R-2 has to be quashed as one without jurisdiction. 7. In the result, this petition is allowed. Annexure-C ie hereby quashed. Sd/- Judge R/221206