JUDGMENT P. Singh, Member. - This second appeal has been filed against the order and decree dated 24-2-84 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra, in Appeal No. 28/82-83. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that Popendra Singh filed a suit under Sections 229-B/209 of U.P. Act I of 1951 for declaration of his bhumidhari rights and for eviction of the defendants. The suit was contested by the defendants on the grounds that adoption deed and the will deed both were forged one and that no objection was raised before the Consolidation authorities. The suit of the plaintiff was decreed on 31-12-82. An appeal was preferred before the Additional Commissioner who allowed the appeal on 24-2-84. 3. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties, and have perused the record. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that notice under Section 80 C.P.C. had been correctly and rightly given before filing the suit, that no issue was framed on the point or raised on behalf of the contesting respondent that the learned Additional Commissioner has wrongly decided and allowed the appeal is a summary and cursory manner on merely technical ground on the point of notice under Section 80 C.P.C. and no decision on merits has been given by him, and that the suit was maintainable. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that notice was invalid, and that there was no will. In reply, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that question of notice under Section 80 C.P.C. could only be raised by the State and not by any third party. 5. Section 80, sub-section (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure reads as under : "80. (1) Save as otherwise provided in sub-section (2), no suit shall be instituted against the Government (including the Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir) or against a public officer in respect of any act purporting to be done by such public officer in his official capacity, until the expiration of two months next after notice in writing has been delivered to or left at the office of - (a) to (bb).......... (c) in the case of a suit against any other State Government, a Secretary to that Government or the Collector of the district." 6. (c) in the case of a suit against any other State Government, a Secretary to that Government or the Collector of the district." 6. Sub-section 3 (b) of Section 80 C.P.C. provides that merely by reason of any error or defect in the notice referred to in sub-section (1) the suit will not be dismissed if such notice contains the cause of action and the relief claimed by the plaintiff substantially. 7. From the reading of Section 80 C.P.C., it is evident that in a suit filed against the State Government, a notice under Section 80 C.P.C. has to be given. The instant suit was filed under Sections 229-B/209 of U.P. Act I of 1951. Sub-section (2) of Section 209 provides that to every suit relating to a land referred to in clause (a) of sub section (1) of Section 209, the State Government shall be impleaded as a necessary party. Where a suit under Section 229-B is filed the state Government and Gaon Sabha are also made parties. From this, it is evident that in the instant suit under Sections 229-B/209, the State Government was a party along with Gaon Sabha. In the notice under Section 80 C.P.C. the fact of the will was not disclosed. The only basis for acquiring bhumidhari rights was the adoption by deceased Kishori Singh. The pleading regarding adoption had not been withdrawn by the plaintiff. No doubt, under Section 80 C.P.C. a notice has to be given to the State Government detailing the names of parties and the cause of action on the basis of which the claim of the plaintiff stands. In the instant case, the notice under Section 80 C.P.C. was given but the fact of the will was not mentioned therein. In view of this the notice under Section 80 C.P.C. would be valid only to the extent of the fact of adoption being the basis of the suit. Since the other pleading regarding the will deed was not mentioned in the notice under Section 80 C.P.C., the notice was defective so far as the pleading will was concerned. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that any objection against the notice under Section 80 C.P.C. could only be raised by the State and not by third parties, reliance being placed on 1974 R.D. 370. In the ruling, referred to, the decision reported in AIR 1964 Alld. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that any objection against the notice under Section 80 C.P.C. could only be raised by the State and not by third parties, reliance being placed on 1974 R.D. 370. In the ruling, referred to, the decision reported in AIR 1964 Alld. 471 was followed by the learned Member regarding issuance of notice. In view of this, the objection raised by the respondents against the issuance of notice under Section 80 C.P.C. could not be raised by him. Thus, the finding of the learned Additional Commissioner that the suit was not maintainable in view of the defective notice under Section 80 CPC was erroneous in law. The suit was not contested either by the State Government or the Gaon Sabha in spite of due notice to them. 8. Consequently, this appeal succeeds and is allowed, the order of the learned Additional Commissioner is set aside, and the appeal is remanded to him for decision merits in accordance with law.