JUDGMENT P. Singh, Member - This second appeal has been filed under Section 331 of U.P. Act 1 of 1951 against the judgment and decree dated 30-5-79 of Additional Commissioner, Agra, reversing the judgment and decree of Sub Divisional Officer, Hathras, dated 29-8-78. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that of the Chema Ram filed a suit under Section 209 of Act 1 of 1951 against Nathi Lal and others in respect of plot No. 312, area 7 Biswa, situate in Jogia Pargana and Tahsil Hathras, alleging that he was the bhumidhar of the land in suit, that he had constructed walls in the east, west and south and had planted trees and installed hand-pump, that he bad purchased the land through a registered sale deed dated 6-11-63, and that the defendants has unauthorisedly occupied the land in June 1966. He prayed for the eviction of the defendants and imposing Rs. 500/- as compensation. The suit was contested by defendants alleging that plaintiff was not the owner of the land in suit, that they were in possession of the land in suit for twenty years, that trees had been planted by them, that the sale deed dated 6-11-63 was a forged one as Beni Ram has no right or title for executing the sale deed, and that the possession of the defendants was found during the consolidation operations. The trial court decreed the suit. An appeal was preferred before the Additional Commissioner who allowed the appeal on 30-5-79. The present second appeal is directed against that order of the learned Additional Commissioner. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and have perused the record. None has appeared for the respondents. 4. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that an objection concerning the issuance of a notice under Section 80 C.P.C. could only be raised by the State Government, and that the ruling relied upon by the learned Additional Commissioner does not apply to the facts and circumstances of the case. The learned counsel submits that the State Government was made a party under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) C.P.C. and hence, the non-issuance of notice under Section 80 C.P.C, was not fatal to the suit. 5. The learned counsel submits that the State Government was made a party under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) C.P.C. and hence, the non-issuance of notice under Section 80 C.P.C, was not fatal to the suit. 5. I find that initially a suit was filed for ejectment in civil court and the Civil Court returned the plaint and thereafter the suit was filed in the revenue court under Section 209 of U.P. Act I of 1951 and by moving an application the State Government was arrayed as a party to the suit. The provisions of section 209 of U. P. Act I of 1951 are meant for ejectment of persons occupying laud without title. The relevant sub-section (1) of Section 209 reads as follows :- "209. (1) A person training or relating possession of land otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of the law for the time being in force, and - (a) Where the land forms part of the holding of a bhumidhar of asami without the consent of such bhumidhar or asami; (b) ........................................... Shall be liable to ejectment on the suit in cases referred to in clause (a) above, of the bhumidhar or asami concerned, and shall also be liable to pay damages. Sub-section (a) of Section 209 provides that the State Government shall be impleaded as a necessary party to every suit relating to a land referred to in clause (a) of sub section (1) of the said section. From the provisions of Section 209 it is evident that the State Government is a necessary party to a suit filed under Section 209 of U.P. Act 1 of 1951. 6. Sub-section (1) of Section 80 C.P.C. provides that no suit shall be instituted against the State Government until the expiration of two months next after notice in writing has been, delivered to or left at the office of Secretary to Government or the Collector of the district in the case of a suit against the State Government. Sub-section (2) of Section 80 C.P.C. provides that if a suit is filed for obtaining an urgent or immediate relief against the Government, the suit may be instituted with the leave of the court without serving any notice as required by sub-section (1). Sub-section (2) of Section 80 C.P.C. provides that if a suit is filed for obtaining an urgent or immediate relief against the Government, the suit may be instituted with the leave of the court without serving any notice as required by sub-section (1). In the proviso to sub-section (2), it has been pro dded that the court shall, if it is satisfied, after hearing the parties, that no urgent or immediate relief need be granted in the suit, return the plaint for presentation to it after complying with the requirements of sub-section (1). 7. In the instant case no application was submitted to the court that the matter was urgent and that the plaintiff be permitted to file the suit without issuance of notice under Section 80 C.P.C. In view of this, the proper course open to the plaintiff was first to give a notice to the State Government under Section 80 C.P.C. and after the expiration of two months next the suit under Section 209 of U.P. Act I of 1951 should have been filed. The plaintiff has not chosen this course of action and, therefore, the suit was not maintainable in view of the bar created by sub-section (1) of Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In this suit the State Government was not impleaded as a party during the course of the suit but at the time of filing of the suit. Hence the benefit of the ruling cited by the learned Additional Commissioner will not be available to the appellant. 8. Consequently, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.