Compliance with Section 80 CPC is Mandatory: Punjab and Haryana High Court Dismisses Appeal in Adverse Possession Case”

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, in a ruling pronounced on May 31, 2024, dismissed an appeal challenging the maintainability of a suit filed without the mandatory notice under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). The suit, initially filed by Sher Singh (since deceased) through his legal representatives and others, sought a declaration of ownership by adverse possession of agricultural land. The judgment, delivered by Justice Pankaj Jain, reaffirmed the necessity of serving notice before instituting a suit against the government or public officers.

The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking a declaration of ownership of agricultural land in Raipur, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra, claiming adverse possession for over 60 years. The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, asserting that implied permission was granted due to the urgent nature of the suit. However, the lower appellate court reversed this decision, citing non-compliance with the mandatory notice requirement under Section 80 CPC. This prompted the plaintiffs to file a second appeal, which has now been dismissed by the High Court.

Mandatory Nature of Section 80 CPC: The court emphasized the critical importance of Section 80 CPC, which stipulates that no suit can be filed against the government or public officers unless the requisite notice has been served. “Compliance with Section 80 CPC is a condition precedent for instituting a suit against the Government or public officers,” the court stated, highlighting that this provision aims to give the government a chance to address grievances outside of court and avoid unnecessary litigation.

Plaintiffs’ Argument and Court’s Rebuttal: The plaintiffs argued that the suit’s urgent nature and the trial court’s registration implied permission for non-compliance with Section 80 CPC. However, the court rejected this argument, noting that merely filing an application under Section 80(2) does not equate to the court granting leave. The court stated, “The legislative intent is clear: service of notice under Section 80(1) is imperative unless urgent and immediate relief is warranted, and even then, leave of the court is a condition precedent.”

The judgment cited several Supreme Court precedents, including State of A.P. v. M/s Pioneer Builders, A.P., to underscore the mandatory nature of Section 80 CPC. The court reiterated that non-compliance with Section 80 renders a suit non-maintainable, and the legislative intent is to provide the government with an opportunity to settle claims outside of court.

Justice Pankaj Jain remarked, “The object of Section 80 is the advancement of justice and securing of public good by avoiding unnecessary litigation. Compliance with Section 80 CPC has been repeatedly held to be mandatory.”

The High Court’s ruling reaffirms the judiciary’s dedication to upholding procedural requirements in litigation involving government entities. By dismissing the appeal, the court reinforces the necessity of adhering to the mandatory notice requirement under Section 80 CPC. This decision sets a significant precedent, underscoring the importance of strict compliance with procedural rules to promote judicial efficiency and reduce unnecessary litigation.

Date of Decision: May 31, 2024

Sher Singh (since deceased) through LRs and others v. State of Haryana through Collector, Kurukshetra