The central legal point established is the mandatory requirement of serving notice under Section 80 C.P.C. before instituting a suit against the Government or a public officer.

JUDGMENT :

A.K. RATH, J.

Plaintiff is the appellant against a confirming judgment.

2. The plaintiff instituted Title Suit No.4 of 1996 in the court of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Balliguda for declaration of right, title, interest and possession over the suit schedule property and permanent injunction. Case of the plaintiff is that he belongs to Kandha caste, which is recognized as scheduled tribe. His father had some agricultural land at mouza Bataguda under Baliguda Tahasil. He lived separately after his marriage and was earning his livelihood by cultivating agricultural land. While matter stood thus, the Tahasildar, Baliguda settled the suit land on 30.11.1977 in Lease Case No.2280 of 1977 and put him into possession. After delivery of possession, he reclaimed the suit land and raised crops. He dug a pucca well over the said land for the purpose of irrigation and also constructed a pucca house over a portion of the suit land to look after his agricultural operation. During settlement operation, he could not take steps before the settlement authorities to record the suit land in his name. In spite of the same, he possessed the suit land uninterruptedly and continuously without any interference from any authority. Thus he has perfected his title over the suit land by way of adverse possession. It is further stated that the lease granted by the Tahasildar was not revoked or cancelled by any competent authority. Despite the same, the Additional Tahasildar, Baliguda initiated Land Encroachment Case No.199 of 1990 against him and passed an order on 21.7.1993 for eviction from the said land. Thereafter he preferred an appeal before the Sub-Collector, Balliguda, which was dismissed. He challenged the said order of the appellate court before the Additional District Magistrate, Phulbani in R.C.No.67 of 1994. The A.D.M. remanded the case to the Tahasildar vide its order dated 22.4.1995 and directed the Tahasildar to verify the physical possession and to dispose the case on merit. After remand, the Additional Tahasildar, Balliguda passed an order on 9.1.1996 directing to evict him from the suit land. Thereafter he instituted the suit. Though it was required to serve notice against the defendants under Section 80 C.P.C. prior to institution of the suit, but he instituted the suit by filing a petition under Section 80 (2) of C.P.C. seeking leave for exemption of service of the notice as some urgent and immediate relief was necessary.

3. Pursuant to issuance of summons, the defendants entered appearance and filed a written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. It is stated that though a lease patta was created in favour of the plaintiff, but he was not given possession of the same nor he ever possessed the suit land at any point of time. The Tahasildar has passed a legal and reasonable order for eviction of the plaintiff from the suit land. The plaintiff has no right to initiate the suit and he is not entitled to get any relief.

4. On the inter se pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court struck four issues. The same are as follows:-

“1. Whether the suit is maintainable ?

2. Whether the plaintiff has preferred his right, title and interest over the suit land by adverse possession ?

3. Whether the plaintiff is a landless person and he is entitled to the suit schedule land ?

4. To what relief, if any, the plaintiff is entitled ?”

5. To substantiate the case, the plaintiff had examined three witnesses including himself as P.W.1 and eight documents on its behalf were exhibited. The defendant no.1 was examined as D.W.1. The suit was dismissed. The plaintiff unsuccessfully challenged the same before the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.1 in R.F.A.No.12/02 of 2002-2011, which was eventually dismissed.

6. This Second Appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:-

“(1) As to whether the courts below are justified in non-suiting the plaintiff when the defendants have admitted that