The short question that arises for the consideration of this Court in this writ petition is whether suo motu powers vested under Section 56 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 can be exercised by an authority beyond the period of three years.

2. Petitioner is the owner of Sy. No. 67 of Herohalli Village, Yeshwanthpura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk. It is renumbered as Sy. No. 181 after durast. According to the petitioner, it is measuring 9 to 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 22-11-2004 calling upon the 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. 181 to Sy. No. 67 and to find out the difference of measurement. This notice is called in question by the petitioner contending that respondent 2 has no power to initiate proceedings suo motu by invoking Section 56 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act.

3. Heard the Counsel for both the parties.

4. According to the Counsel for the petitioner, in view of proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 56 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, suo motu powers can be exercised either by the Revenue Officer or by a Survey Officer referred to under sub-section (1) of Section 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 years after respondent 2 would not get any right to initiate suo motu proceedings.

5. According to the learned Government Advocate, limitation is prescribed under Section 56 of the Land Revenue Act only if a revision is filed by a party and no limitation is prescribed if suo motu proceedings are initiated by the authorities. Therefore, he requests this Court to dismiss the petition.

6. Section ·56 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act reads as hereunder:

"Section 56. Power of revision.-(1) The Tribunal, any Revenue . 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 and 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.

Explanation.-For the purposes of this sub-section.-

(i) Special Deputy Commissioner shall 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 appear to the Tribunal or to such officer aforesaid, that any decision or order to proceedings so-called for should be modified, annulled, or reversed, the Tribunal or such officer may pass such order as may be deemed fit:

Provided that no order shall be modified, annulled or reversed unless notice has been served on the parties interested and opportunity given to them of 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 (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 wit