Heard the Counsel for the petitioner and Government Advocate f01 1st and 2nd respondents and Mr. S.V. Prakash for 3rd respondent.

2. According to the petitioner, he has purchased 3 acres 121/2 guntas in Sy. No.3 of Ramapura Village, Nidige Hobli, Shimoga Taluk from one Sannegowda under registered sale deed dated 23rd January, 1981. Thereafter, he filed an application before the 2nd respondent to survey the land purchased by him and fix the boundaries. Accordingly, the proceedings were initiated. After measuring the property by issuing notice to all the neighbours, the boundaries were fixed by the Assistant Director of Land Records ('ADLR' for short). Thereafter, the 3rd respondent filed a revision under Section 56 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 ('Act' for short) before the Deputy Director of Land Records, Shimoga, who has allowed the revision, even though the same was barred by limitation and set aside the order passed by the ADLR in fixing the boundaries of the land of the petitioner. This order is called in question in this writ petition.

3. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, under Section 56 of the Act, the 1st respondent is not empowered to entertain a revision beyond 4 months. He further contends that against the order of ADLR, the appeal is provided to the Joint Director of Survey Settlement and Land Records. Therefore, the revisional powers could not have been exercised by the 1st respondent. On these two grounds, he requests this Court to set aside the order passed by the 1st respondent and to confirm the boundaries fixed by the 2nd respondent.

4. Per contra, learned Counsel for the 3rd respondent submits that under Section 56 of the Act, the revisional powers can be exercised only if a revision petition is filed by party within 4 months and suo motu the revisional powers can also be exercised by the authorities within three years from the date of passing of the order. According to him, the 3rd respondent was not served with any notice before conducting the survey. The revision petition filed by the 3rd respondent was well-within 4 months from the date of knowledge, since she is the permanent resident of Mumbai. According to him, if a revision is filed within 4 months from the date of knowledge, the same has to be construed as well in time.

5. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, under the provisions of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 can be pressed into service only if the first and second appeals are filed under Sections 49 and 50 of the Act. Such a provision is not made to exercise power of revision. Therefore, he contends that the date of knowledge is not important, but the date of order has to be calculated while reckoning the period of 4 months to entertain the revision.

6. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, the following points would emerge for consideration in this writ petition.-

(1) Whether the revision petition entertained by the 1st respondent was well in time?

(2) Whether the 1st respondent was entitled to exercise revisional powers against the order passed by the Assistant Director of Land Records, when an appeal lies to the Joint Director of Land Records?

7. It is not in dispute that the revisional powers can be exercised by an authority if a petition is filed within 4 months from the date of order. It is also true that under Section 56 of the Act, there is no provision to invoke Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

8. In this background this Court has to examine whether the date of knowledge of the order to the 3rd respondent can be considered for the purpose of reckoning the period of limitation prescribed under Section 56 of the Act. If an application is filed under Section 56 of the Act to review the order, such power can be exercised, if the same is filed within 4 months from the date of order. But in the instant case, before passing the order by the ADLR, no notice was served on the 3rd respondent, w