Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

The substantial questions of law involved, formulated and to be answered in the second appeal preferred by the defendants are as under:-

"01. Whether, without service of notice as required under section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, civil suit could have been instituted ?

02. Whether, the suit filed by the respondents/plaintiffs was barred according to Sec. 257 of the Land Revenue Code, 1959 ?"

[For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred hereinafter as per their status shown and ranking given in the suit before the trial Court].

2. The plaintiffs' filed representative suit after complying the provisions of Order 1 Rule 8 of the CPC that they are villagers of Gram Kasekera and title-holders of the suit land, they are entitled for declaration of title and also for possession from the private defendants. The State Government was impleaded as party defendant on 31.1.2001.

3. The defendants set up a plea that they are in settled possession of the suit land for last 40 years, as such, they have perfected their title by way of adverse possession. Additional plea was taken by the defendants that notice under Section 80 of the CPC was not served to the State Government before instituting the instant suit. The State Government filed separate written statement stating inter-alia that the suit land is Government land reserved for grazing purpose and defendants No.1 to 4 are encroachers upon the said land.

4. The trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment and decree dated 18.8.2003, dismissed the suit holding that the suit land is Government land reserved for grazing purpose and for aam nistar and also held that suit is maintainable without service of notice under Section 80 of the CPC as no relief has been sought against the State Government and liberty was reserved in favour of the State Government to proceed in accordance with law. On appeal being preferred by the private defendants, the first appellate Court partly modified the decree of the trial Court and held that the defendants have failed to prove their adverse possession over the suit land, but held that the suit land is Government land reserved for grazing purpose and villagers of the said village are owners and possession holders and it is the land reserved for aam nistar, against which, this second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC has been preferred by the appellants/defendants, in which substantial question of law have been formulated by this Court, which have been set-out in the opening paragraph of this judgment.

5. Mr. Manoj Paranjape, learned counsel for the appellants/defendants, would submit that the first appellate Court is absolutely unjustified in reversing the judgment and decree of the trial Court as the suit was not maintainable under Section 257 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter called as "the Code").

6. Mr. S.K. Agrawal, learned Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.11/State, would submit that the suit land is Government land and it has been reserved for grazing purpose.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records with utmost circumscription.

Answer to substantial question of law No.1:-

8. Admittedly, the plaintiffs' representative suit was for declaration of title and recovery of possession of suit land from the private defendants. The State Government was added as party defendant by order dated 31.1.2001. The trial Court has clearly held that no relief has been sought against the State Government and accordingly, decided the issue and dismissed the suit holding that the suit land is Government land reserved for grazing purpose, though the first appellate Court has partly modified the decree, but in sum and substance, the first appellate Court has also held that the suit land is Government land reserved for grazing purpose, but further hel