2026 Supreme(Online)(Jhk) 73

HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J
State of Jharkhand – Appellant
Versus
Krishna Singh – Respondent
S.A No. 94 of 2019|S.A. No. 114 of 2019

A suit for rectification of record of rights under the 1908 Act is governed strictly by its three-month limitation period, which cannot be extended under the Limitation Act. Furthermore, such proceedings are subject to the mandatory statutory notice requirement for litigation against public officers.

Headnote:(A) Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 - Section 87(1) - Limitation Act, 1963 - Sections 5, 29 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 80 - Rectification of record of rights - Suit for rectification - Suit filed after ten years from final publication of record of rights - Requirement of notice under Section 80 CPC in proceedings before Revenue Officer - Applicability of Section 5, Limitation Act, to suits before Revenue Officer. (Paras 36, 38, 59, 66)

(B) Limitation - Suit for rectification of record of rights - Suit must be instituted within three months from date of certificate of final publication - Date of knowledge is not the start of limitation period - Section 5, Limitation Act, does not apply to suits under special enactment - Revenue officer lacks jurisdiction to condone delay. (Paras 41, 48, 49)

(C) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 80 - Notice to Government regarding public officer actions - Mandatory requirement - Applies to suits filed before Revenue Courts under special law in absence of specific exclusion - Failure to serve notice is a formal defect fatal to the suit. (Paras 62, 63, 65, 66)

Facts of the case:
A suit was filed before a revenue authority seeking rectification of finally published record of rights more than ten years after their publication. The plaintiffs sought condonation of delay based on the date of knowledge of the publication, claiming they were out of station. The defendants contended the suit was barred by limitation and defective for lack of mandatory statutory notice required in litigation against public officers. The revenue authority's initial decision was reversed by the appellate court, leading to the present appeals.

Findings of Court:
The court held that the period of limitation for a suit under Section 87(1) of the 1908 Act commences from the date of final publication as per statute, not the date of knowledge. Furthermore, it held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act is inapplicable to such suits. Additionally, the court affirmed that the mandate of Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code applies to suits before Revenue Officers, and failure to issue such notice renders the suit non-maintainable.

Issues: Whether a suit for the rectification of record of rights filed under the 1908 Act is barred by limitation when filed after the statutory three-month period; whether the Revenue Officer can condone such delay; and whether a suit before a Revenue Officer is maintainable without a statutory notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Ratio Decidendi: The statutory timeline for filing a suit under the relevant 1908 Act is mandatory and starts from the date of final publication, precluding the application of the Limitation Act's provisions for condoning delays. Moreover, the procedural safeguard of a pre-litigation notice to the state is a mandatory requirement applicable to revenue suits, and its absence renders the proceedings inherently defective.

Result: Appeals allowed; the suit stands dismissed.