IMPORTANT POINT
Notice under S.80 CPC is not required for suits filed under S.14 of the Kerala Surveys and Boundaries Act, as it is a special statute providing distinct remedies.

JUDGMENT :

M.A. ABDUL HAKHIM, J.

1. These four appeals at the instance of State Government and its Revenue Officers arise from two suits filed by two individuals as O.S.Nos.68/2007 and 78/2007 under S.14 of the Kerala Surveys and Boundaries Act, challenging the Re survey of the plaint schedule properties mentioned therein.

2. The appellants are the defendants 1 to 8. Vythiri Grama Panchayat is the 9th defendant. Both the suits were decreed in favour of the plaintiffs. The 9th defendant Panchayat filed A.S.Nos. 1/2019 and 2/2019 before the First Appellate Court challenging the judgments and decrees passed in both the suits. The said appeals were dismissed by the First Appellate Court by judgments and decrees dt. 15.11.2021. The defendants 1 to 8 have filed RSA No.539/2023 and RSA No.541/2023 challenging the judgments and decrees in AS No.2/2019 and AS No. 1/2019 respectively. The defendants 1 to 8 had filed AS No.12/2019 and 13/2019 challenging the judgment and decree in both the suits with Applications to condone delay of 279 days in filing the appeals. The First Appellate Court dismissed the Applications to condone delay and consequently dismissed the appeals also as per judgment and decree dt. 16.11.2020. RSA Nos. 579/2021 and 583/2021 are filed by the defendants 1 to 8 challenging the judgments and decrees in AS No. 12/2019 and 13/2019 respectively.

3. RSA Nos.579/2021 and 583/2021 are admitted formulating the following substantial question of law:

1. Whether it is proper to dismiss a delay petition without considering the valid contentions of the State which resulted in the dismissal of the appeal without hearing it on merit?

2. Is it proper to dismiss an appeal having merit merely on the basis of delay in a manner adversely affecting the right to appeal of the aggrieved party?

4. RSA Nos.539/2021 and 541/2023 are admitted formulating the following substantial questions of law:

1. Is the finding of the Trial Court, as well as the First Appellate Court, that the suit is not barred for want of notice under S.80 CPC justified?

5. The First Appellate Court considered the matter on merits in AS Nos.1/2019 and 2/2019, in which the Panchayat, as well as the State Government and its revenue officers, advanced arguments. Even though AS Nos.12/2019 and 13/2019 filed by the State and its officers were dismissed on the ground of delay without considering the matter on merits since their contentions are considered by the First Appellate Court in AS Nos. 1/2019 and 2/2019, the State and its officers could not be said to be aggrieved by the dismissal of AS No.12/2019 and 13/2019 on the ground of delay. Hence the substantial questions of law raised in RSA Nos.579/2021 and 583/2021 do not arise for consideration. Hence, I confine the consideration of substantial question of law formulated in RSA Nos.539/2023 and 541/2023 in these appeals.

6. I heard the learned Special Government Pleader(Revenue) Sri. M.H.Hanil Kumar for the appellants in these appeals and the learned Senior Counsel Sri.Ranjith Thampan instructed by Adv. Smt. P.R.Reena for the party respondents and the learned Counsel Sri. Manoj Ramaswamy for the Panchayat.

7. The only point argued by the learned Special Government Pleader in these appeals is that the suits are not maintainable for want of Notice under S.80 CPC. The learned Special Government Pleader argued that the Trial Court, as well as the First Appellate Court, acted illegally, holding that for the suits filed under S.14 of the Kerala Surveys and Boundaries Act, Notice under S.80 CPC is not required. The learned Special Government Pleader contended that the precedents relied on by the First Appellate Court namely, Raghunath Das v. Union of India [AIR 1969 SC 674], Salem Advocate Bar Association T.N v. Union of India [AIR 2005 SC 3353] and Azhakodi Devi Charitable Trust v. Commissioner HR & CE(Administration Department) [2007(1) KHC 110] are clearly distinguishable. The learned Special Government Pleader tried to distinguish the