A suit for correction of record pursuant to established title can proceed beyond limitation, with notice requirements under Section 80 CPC deemed unnecessary if no specific relief against public officers is claimed.

JUDGMENT :

SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.

1. This is a plaintiff’s appeal against a confirming judgment. The suit filed by the plaintiff for declaration of his title and for correction of ROR being dismissed by the trial Court was confirmed in appeal.

2. For convenience, the parties are referred to as per their respective status before the trial Court.

3. The plaintiff’s case is that the suit land originally stood recorded in the name of Sk. Taju Mohammad, Sk. Jabar Mohammad, Sk. Manan Mohammad, Sk. Safiti Mohammad and Sk. Baboo Mohammad in the sabik record of rights published in 1930. The plaintiff purchased the land in a Court auction sale on 25.03.1949 in Execution Case No.1003 of 1947-48 of the Court of Deputy Collector, Execution Cuttack. The possession was delivered on 13.11.1949 through the legal process. Since then, the plaintiff is in possession by paying rent to the Tahasildar, Jagatsinghpur. He also sold Ac.0.08 decs of land towards the northern portion of suit land to one Jayanta Kumar Das on 24.07.1978 and delivered possession. During the Hal settlement operation the settlement authorities wrongly recorded the entire land in the name of defendant No.1, illegally. The plaintiff issued notice to the Government under Section 80 of CPC and thereafter, filed the suit for declaration.

4. Defendant Nos.1 to 3 and the Proforma-defendant Jayanta Kumar Das filed their written statements. Defendant Nos.1 to 3 challenged the maintainability of the suit on the ground of non-joinder and mis-joinder of parties, limitation and of being hit by Section 42 of the SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT . It was stated that the execution case is illegal and cannot affect the right of the parties. The Hal-ROR was published correctly after making spot enquiry.

5. The defendants further claimed that one Dewan Bahadur Srikrushna Mohapatra had purchased the suit property from the original owner vide registered sale deed in the year 1931 for establishing a school and he delivered possession of the same. The suit land is used as playground on one portion and the school building is situated over the other portion. The school was taken over by the Government in the year 1961 and accordingly the land with building was handed over to the State Government. The settlement authorities being satisfied with the possession of defendant No.1 recorded its name in the Hal-ROR. The plaintiff was never in possession.

6. Basing on the rival pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues for determination:-

“1.Whether the suit is maintainable?

2. Whether the plaintiff has cause of action to file the suit?

3. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties?

4. Whether the suit is barred by the law of limitation?

5. Whether the suit is hit under section 42 of the SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT ?

6. Whether the plaintiff acquired possession of the suit land on 13.11.1949 by virtue of confirmation of sale in execution case No.1003 of 1947-48 through the legal process of the Executive Court?

7. Whether the defendants have got right, title, interest and possession over the suit property?

8. Whether the Hal settlement entries in respect of the suit property are valid, genuine and legal?

9. Whethe