JUDGMENT P. Singh, Member - These second appeals have been filed against the orders of Additional Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra, dated 2-6-82, by which the learned Additional Commissioner has allowed the appeals and set aside the orders of the learned trial court dated 31-12-71 and decreed the suits of the plaintiffs. 2. I have heard the learned counsels for both the parties and have perused the record. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant says that the suit under Section 229-B of U.P. Act I of 1951 was filed without giving notice to the State Government and Gaon Sabha. The learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondents says that this objection could not be raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. 4. Section 80 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) in the case of a suit against the Central Government except where it relates to a railway, a Secretary to that Government; (b) in the case of a suit against the Central Government where it relates to a railway, the General Manager of that railway ; (b) in the case of a suit against the Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, the Chief Secretary to that Government or any other officer authorised by that Government in this behalf; (c) in the case of a suit against any other State Government, a Secretary to that Government or the Collector of the District; and in the case of a public officer, delivered to him or left at his office, stating the cause of action, the name, description and place of residence of the plaintiff and the relief which he claims; and the plaint shall contain a statement that such notice has been so delivered or left. (2) A suit to obtain an urgent or immediate relief against the Government (including the Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir) or any public officer in respect of any act purporting to be done by such public officer in his official capacity, may be instituted, with the leave of the Court, without serving any notice as required by sub-section (1); but the Court shall not grant relief in the suit, whether interim or otherwise, except after giving to the Government or public officer, as the case may be, a reasonable opportunity of showing cause in respect of the relief prayed for in the suit; Provided 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 requirements of sub-section (1)." 5. Sub-section (2) of Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides an exception to the service of notice prior to institution of a suit against the State Government. A suit for obtaining urgent or immediate relief against the Government (including the Government of State of Jammu and Kashmir) or any public officer in respect of any act purporting to be done by such public officer in his official capacity, may be instituted with the leave of the Court without serving any notice as required by sub-section (1) of Section 80 C.P.C. 6. The instant suit was filed under Section 229-B of U.P. Act I of 1951, which reads as under :- "229-B. (1) Any person claiming to be an asami of a holding or any part thereof, whether exclusively or jointly with any other person, may sue the land-holder for a declaration of his rights as asami in such holding or part, as the case may be. (2) In any suit under sub-section (1) any other person to hold as asami under the land-holder shall be impleaded as defendant. (3) The provisions of sub-sections (l)and (2) shall mutatis mutandis apply to a suit by a person claiming to be a bhumidhar with the amendment that for the word "landholder" the words "the State Government and the Gaon Sabha" are substituted therein." 7. (3) The provisions of sub-sections (l)and (2) shall mutatis mutandis apply to a suit by a person claiming to be a bhumidhar with the amendment that for the word "landholder" the words "the State Government and the Gaon Sabha" are substituted therein." 7. From sub-section (3) of Section 229-B, it is evident that the State Government is a party to a suit filed by a Bhumidhar under Section 229-B. As such a notice is to be served on the State Government, I find that giving of a notice under Section 80 C.P.C. and service of a notice under section 80 C.P.C. are two different stages of an activity. First, a notice is to be given and then it has to be served on the State Government. All the decisions where it has been held that no third party can raise an objection in respect of service of notice under Section 80 C.P.C. are not attracted to the facts of the instant case. Here in the instant suit, no notice was given under Section 80 C.P.C. and as such it cannot be said that objections could not be raised by a third party against the giving of a notice under Section 80 C.P.C. I am of the view that if a notice under Section 80 C.P.C. has not been given, then an objection could be raised at any stage of the proceedings by any party. But, where it is established from the evidence on record that a notice under Section 80 C.P.C. has been given, and the objection is in respect of service of notice, then only, a third party will have no right to raise that objection before the courts, as that objection could be raised by the State Government. 8. But, where it is established from the evidence on record that a notice under Section 80 C.P.C. has been given, and the objection is in respect of service of notice, then only, a third party will have no right to raise that objection before the courts, as that objection could be raised by the State Government. 8. Here, in the instant case, the objection is not in relation to the service of notice but is in respect of giving of a notice under Section 80 C.P.C. The provisions contained in sub-section (1) of Section 80 C.P.C. are mandatory and unless the court has permitted to file the suit as envisaged under sub-section (2) of Section 80 C.P.C, the suit could only be filed alter giving a notice under Section 80 C.P.C. Since, in the instant case, the first part pertaining to giving of a notice as required under sub-section (1) has not been complied with, any objection in relation to service of notice is not at all relevant. As such the orders passed by both the courts below are liable to be set aside. Consequently, these appeals are allowed and the orders of the courts below are set aside. 9. Before parting with this case, I would like to make an observation that if the plaintiff-respondents desire to file a fresh suit, they can do it after giving a notice under Section 80 C.P.C. and its due service on the State Government. 10. This order governs Second Appeals nos. 74 and 75 of 1981-82/District Mathura.