R. M.Sahai, J. - (1.) This petition is directed against orders passed by opposite parties Nos. 3, 4 and 5 dismissing suit filed by petitioners under Section 198 (4) as it stood in 1970, on the ground that it was barred by time, that no notice under Section 80, C. P. C. was filed the allotment made in favour of the petitioners was in excess of the area permitted to be allotted to the landless persons under Z. A. Act.
(2.) It has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that none of the grounds on which suit has been dismissed is sound in law. According to him the only requirement under Section 80, of C. P. C. is to serve a notice on the State Government or public functionary. The argument appears to be correct as there is no requirement under Section 80 of the C. P. C. that a notice issued to party should be filed along with plaint. It has not been found by any of the courts that notice issued under Section 80 was not served on the State Government or Gaon Sabha. In absence of any finding on this aspect suit cannot be held to be bad for want of notice.
(3.) In respect of finding on question of limitation learned counsel urged that the leases granted in petitioners favour were cancelled on 12th August, 1968 whereas they came to know of it in 1970 and suit filed by them on 22nd July, 1970 was within six months from the date of the knowledge of cancellation of the lease. The finding of the Trial Court on this question is that the cancellation orders were passed on 12th December, 1968 and the suit was instituted on 22nd July, 1970. Therefore, it was not within time. It is this finding which has been confirmed by Additional Commissioner and Board of Revenue. In recording this finding trial court obviously omitted to consider limitation provided for filing of the suit under Section 198 (4). In Appendix 3 Serial No. 24-A of Z. A. Rules it has been provided that suit to establish any right and claim in the land allotted under sub-section (1) of Section 194 can be filed when the order of ejectment becomes known to the plaintiff. What was to be found therefore was whether petitioners had come to know of the ejectment in 1968 or they came to know of it within six months prior to filing of the suit. There is no such finding by any of the authorities. It appears they were labouring under impression that limitation of six months is to be counted from the date when leases were cancelled. In doing so they committed manifest error of law.;