A waiver of notice under Section 80 C. P. C. by the Advocate General in writ proceedings would enure for a subsequent suit challenging the validity of the same notification, even if the suit was filed by persons other than the applicant for the issue of the writ.

JUDGMENT :- This appeal arises from the decree in O. S. No. 15 of 1954, on the file of the Subordinate Judges Court, Ramanathapuram, declaring that the suit village of Neriyandooval in Mudukulathur taluk, Ramanathapuram Dt. was one to which the provisions of Madras Act XXX of 1947 and the Notifications thereunder would not apply and that the appellant could not interfere with the respondents possession of the same. The State of Madras, which was the first defendant to the action, is the appellant to the appeal. Neriyandooval was one of the 92-3/4 villages in Perungaranai Vattam which was a Dharmasanam grant by the ancient Pandyan King Sundarapandian to certain Brahmins. It is conceded that it is not an inam estate under the provisions of the Madras Act 26 of 1948. The appellant issued a notification under the provisions of Madras Act 30 of 1947, for reducing the rent. Thereupon the 9th respondent filed an application for the issue of a writ of certiorari under Art. 226 of the Constitution in C. M. P. No. 13299 of 1950 to this court for quashing the proceedings initiated by the appellant.

Having regard to the nature of the question involved and the evidence that was necessary to be gone into it, was apparently considered necessary that the appropriate remedy for the petitioner was to file a suit. On behalf of the State, the learned Advocate General waived notice under S. 80 C. P. C. in case the matter was to be agitated by way of suit. This court by its order dated 3-1-1952 held that the more appropriate manner in which the proceedings of the appellant under Act 30 of 1947 could be questioned was to challenge the propriety thereof in a separate suit.

Respondents 1 to 8 then filed the suit impleading the 9th respondent as a party defendant. Later the 9th respondent was transposed as the 9th plaintiff to the suit. The respondents raised several contentions against the validity of the Governments order issuing the notification. First it was denied that the village was an estate. Then it was stated that Act 18 of 1936 itself was void and then it was contended that the suit village should be deemed to be the private or pannai lands of the landholders and therefore no reduction of rent was possible. This last question is the only question in the present appeal. The appellant contested the suit.

It was contended that the lands were ryoti lands in the occupation of tenants. In the written statement the names of 67 tenants were set out as being in actual occupation of the various plots of land. It was also pleaded that there was no valid notice under S. 80 C. P. C. and the suit was therefore liable to be dismissed. The learned Subordinate Judge held that all the lands were pannai lands and that as there had been a waiver by the Advocate General of a notice under S. 80 C. P. C. the suit was maintainable. In that view, the lower court passed a decree as prayed for by the respondents. The State has filed the present appeal against the decree of the lower court.

2. Learned Government Pleader first contended that the lower court was in error in regard to the necessity of a notice under S. 80 C.P. C. His contention is that the 9th respondent Abdul Rahiman alone was the petitioner in the writ petition to this court and the concession or the waiver by the Advocate General should be deemed to relate only to a case where that individual brought a suit challenging the validity of the Notification and that such a concession would not avail the other plaintiffs, namely, respondents 1 to 8 to the action. In support of his contention, the learned Government Pleader said that S. 80 was a mandatory provision, which had to be strictly complied with. The learned Subordinate Judge did not accept this contention.

He has pointed out that uncontradicted evidence of P. W. 1 in the case was that the 9th respondent filed the writ petition on behalf of all the other co-sharers in a representative capacity and that therefore the present suit filed by all the