LexRAM KUMAR AND ANR. versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
'> i [2008] 13 S.C.R. 1097 RAM KUMAR AND ANR. v. · ·STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS .. · (Civil Appeal Nos.1..15~116 of 2001)" SEPTEMBER 29; 2.008 [TARUN CHATTERJEE AND DALVEER BHANDARI, JJ.) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908-' s, 80:... Notice undet'- Land of appellants' acquired and in lieu thereof certain laf!d • c given to them :... Recalling or said order by District Collector ·and land given to Education Officer - Challenge to - Suit for recovery of possession of said land from Education Officerby appellants·:.... Also issuance of notice u/s. BO to District Collec- tor before (iling su(t -Notice uls. 80 to Education Officer'- ":0 Requirement of - Held: Not necessary - Education .Officer even though a public officer had not done any act in his offi- · cial capacity - Appellants challenged the order of District Collector and the relief sought in the suit was consequential in .nature - They did not challenge· any act of'Education Of- ficer - c>rder passed by District Collector was in. his official E capacity and service of notice to him was sufficient· compli- ance of s. 80 - Hence, order of trial court that service ·of notice. u/s 80 to Education Officer not n.ecessary, is upheld and that of High Court holding otherwise, is set aside. ' · :. Respondent no. 1 and 2 initiated proceedings for ac- quisition of certain lands of appellant's father. Thereafter, respondent no. 2-District ·Collector b,y ord_er dated 20.11.1968 transferred .certain land to-the appellants in li,eu .F of the land acquired. The appellants were delivered pos- G session of the -land. However, respondent i:io. 2 rev9ked the order and passed a fresh order date~ 20.04.1974 that out of the lands delivered to the appellant, respondent no. 3-Education 'Officer be given possession of 7 bigas 1097 H 1098 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 13 S.C.R. A of land. Appellants approached various Authorities but were unsuccessful. Appellants served a notice u/s. 80 CPC on the State Government through respondent No.2 but did not receive any reply. Appellants then filed the suit for declaration that the order dated 20.11.1968 be declared B null and void and respondent no. 3 be directed to give the posses.sion of the said land to appellants. Issue was raised before the trial court that whether the suit is to be dismissed for non-service of notiC:e u/s. 80 CPC on re- spondent No.3 by the appellants. Trial court decided the c issue in favour of'the appellants. It held that respondent No.3, though a public officer-Education Officer-had not done any act in his official capacity, thus, notice u/s. 80 was not required. However, High Court held otherwise and dismissed the suit in entirety. Hence the present ap- D peal. Partly allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 The respondent No.2 passed orders dated 20.11.1968 and 20.04.1974 in his official capacity and no- tice u/s. 80 CPC was duly served upon him before filing E . the suit. Since the possession of the suit land was taken over from the appellants by respondent Nos.1 and 2 and delivered to respondent No.3, a prayer was made in the plaint to pass a decree directing the respondent No.3 to deliver the possession to the appellants, which was con- F sequential in nature. Therefore, it is clear that the respon- dent No.3 had not done any act in his official c~pacity and, therefore, the trial court rightly held that service of notice u/s. 80 CPC, in the facts and circumstances of the case, was not at all necessary, as only a decree for pos- G session was prayed for which was delivered by the re- spondent Nos. 1 & 2 to Respondent No. 3 on the basis of recall of the order dated 20.11.1968. [Para 9] [1107,A-DJ 1.2 High Court committed an error in holding that the H respondent No. 3 in the facts as alleged in the plaint could RAM KUMAR & ANR. v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN 1099 & ORS. be said to have acted as a public officer in his official ca- A · pacity. There is no reason to disagree. with the view ex- pressed by the trial court. The appellants do not'seek to set aside any order of the respondent No.3 or to declare . illegal any of the acts of respondent No.3. It merely sought decree for recovery of possession of the suit land to the s appellants. The suit which is not in respect of any act done by the respondent No.3, as a public officer, and in which no act of respondentNo.3 is either challenged or sought to be set aside is not a suit to whi<;h s. 80 can very w~I. a
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.