Provided that any Revenue Officer or Survey Officer referred to in subsection (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.

My Understanding: is that Suo motto powers exist only on those orders against orders on which appeal
can be preferred under this section but not appealed. The Orders U/s 56 cannot be appealed under the
same Section i.e. U/s 56, but can be appealed U/s 57. Hence bar on suo motto powers. We can relate to
Gurujaj Orders.

In Puttahanomma the Supreme Court order Points under consideration:

The appellant filed a revision under Section 56. (1st Revision) The Joint Director by his order dated 26,
1991 allowed the revision and set aside the order of the appellate authority and confirmed the order of the
Assistant Director. The respondents filed a revision under Section 56 to the Director. (2nd Revision) The
Director by his order dated September 16, 1991 dismissed the same. In a further revision filed by him the
Karnataka Administrative Tribunal by order dated January 1, 1992 dismissed the revision holding that no
second revision is maintainable under Section 56.

. The High Court while holding that the second revision is not maintainable has held further that the order
passed by the Joint Director, namely, Ist revisional authority was a nullity for want of jurisdiction.
It would be clear under the scheme of the Act that the hierarchy of remedial forums prescribed are the
appeal under Section 49, second appeal under Section 50 and only a revision under Section 56 of the Act

Supreme Court Held that

The order of the Joint Director, thereby, is not a nullity or without jurisdiction since the remedy under
Section 56 is available to the appellant

My Understanding: Supereme court did not disturb the findings of the High court about Second
Revision not mainatainable and held it is not nullity or without jurisdiction only the First Revision
order. It has also held that the Section 49 and 50 are appeal and section 56 is Revision.

In Madan Kumar And Others orders:

Section 57:"Order expressly made final under the Act.--Whenever in this Act it is declared that an order of
a Revenue Officer shall be final, such expression shall be deemed to mean that no appeal lies from such
order. The Tribunal alone shall be competent to modify, annul or reverse any such order under the
provisions of Section 56"

“Orders against which appeals are provided under Sections 49 and 50 of the Act, are obviously out of
purview of Section 57 of the Act” and “held that revisional jurisdiction of the Tribunal by operation of
Section 57 of the Act is not there and only a W.P.”

MY UNDERSTANDING: Orders against which appeals are not provided under Sections 49 and 50 of
the Act, are IN the purview of Section 57” Hence the Tribunal and High Court only has jurisdiction.

In Prabhu High Court orders:

Section 195 of the Act provides for the delegation of powers. Exercising the powers conferred under sub-
section 1 of Section 195 of the Act, the Government of Karnataka has delegated the powers with the
Director, Survey Settlement and Land Records to the Deputy Commissioner of the concerned District on
the power of revision under Section 56 of the Act. Hence, it can be held that revision lies under Section 56
of the Act before the Deputy Commissioner of the concerned District against the order of the Technical
Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner.