JUDGMENT : A.K. RATH, J. Plaintiff is the appellant against a confirming judgment. 2. The plaintiff instituted Title Suit No.4 of 1996 in the court of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Balliguda for declaration of right, title, interest and possession over the suit schedule property and permanent injunction. Case of the plaintiff is that he belongs to Kandha caste, which is recognized as scheduled tribe. His father had some agricultural land at mouza Bataguda under Baliguda Tahasil. He lived separately after his marriage and was earning his livelihood by cultivating agricultural land. While matter stood thus, the Tahasildar, Baliguda settled the suit land on 30.11.1977 in Lease Case No.2280 of 1977 and put him into possession. After delivery of possession, he reclaimed the suit land and raised crops. He dug a pucca well over the said land for the purpose of irrigation and also constructed a pucca house over a portion of the suit land to look after his agricultural operation. During settlement operation, he could not take steps before the settlement authorities to record the suit land in his name. In spite of the same, he possessed the suit land uninterruptedly and continuously without any interference from any authority. Thus he has perfected his title over the suit land by way of adverse possession. It is further stated that the lease granted by the Tahasildar was not revoked or cancelled by any competent authority. Despite the same, the Additional Tahasildar, Baliguda initiated Land Encroachment Case No.199 of 1990 against him and passed an order on 21.7.1993 for eviction from the said land. Thereafter he preferred an appeal before the Sub-Collector, Balliguda, which was dismissed. He challenged the said order of the appellate court before the Additional District Magistrate, Phulbani in R.C.No.67 of 1994. The A.D.M. remanded the case to the Tahasildar vide its order dated 22.4.1995 and directed the Tahasildar to verify the physical possession and to dispose the case on merit. After remand, the Additional Tahasildar, Balliguda passed an order on 9.1.1996 directing to evict him from the suit land. Thereafter he instituted the suit. Though it was required to serve notice against the defendants under Section 80 C.P.C. prior to institution of the suit, but he instituted the suit by filing a petition under Section 80 (2) of C.P.C. seeking leave for exemption of service of the notice as some urgent and immediate relief was necessary. Thereafter he instituted the suit. Though it was required to serve notice against the defendants under Section 80 C.P.C. prior to institution of the suit, but he instituted the suit by filing a petition under Section 80 (2) of C.P.C. seeking leave for exemption of service of the notice as some urgent and immediate relief was necessary. 3. Pursuant to issuance of summons, the defendants entered appearance and filed a written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. It is stated that though a lease patta was created in favour of the plaintiff, but he was not given possession of the same nor he ever possessed the suit land at any point of time. The Tahasildar has passed a legal and reasonable order for eviction of the plaintiff from the suit land. The plaintiff has no right to initiate the suit and he is not entitled to get any relief. 4. On the inter se pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court struck four issues. The same are as follows:- “1. Whether the suit is maintainable ? 2. Whether the plaintiff has preferred his right, title and interest over the suit land by adverse possession ? 3. Whether the plaintiff is a landless person and he is entitled to the suit schedule land ? 4. To what relief, if any, the plaintiff is entitled ?” 5. To substantiate the case, the plaintiff had examined three witnesses including himself as P.W.1 and eight documents on its behalf were exhibited. The defendant no.1 was examined as D.W.1. The suit was dismissed. The plaintiff unsuccessfully challenged the same before the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.1 in R.F.A.No.12/02 of 2002-2011, which was eventually dismissed. 6. This Second Appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:- “(1) As to whether the courts below are justified in non-suiting the plaintiff when the defendants have admitted that notice under Section 80 C.P.C. has been received by them; (2) As to whether the courts below are justified in ignoring the leased patta vide Ext.1, when the same was not cancelled by any other authority and attained finality.” 7. Mr. Mr. P.K. Rath, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that the courts below committed manifest illegality and impropriety in holding that the suit was not maintainable for non-service of notice to the defendants under Section 80 C.P.C. He further submitted that the suit was filed along with a petition under Section 80 (2) C.P.C. The learned trial court admitted the plaint and decided the matter on merit and, as such, it is to be held that leave was impliedly granted. He further submitted that lease patta was granted in favour of the plaintiff, vide Ext.1. The same was not cancelled. Initiation of proceedings under the Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment Act, 1972 is bad in law. The appellant is in possession of the suit property. Since the day patta was granted in his favour, he is in possession of the land peacefully and continuously with hostile animus to the defendants. Thus the plaintiff has perfected title by way of adverse possession. 8. Per contra, Ms. S. Mishra, learned Additional Standing Counsel supported the judgments of the courts below. 9. Admittedly, the suit was filed along with a petition under Section 80 (2) of C.P.C. for waiver of notice on the defendants. The learned trial court has not passed any express order granting leave. The suit was admitted. Issues were framed. Both parties adduced evidence. The learned trial court held that the suit was not maintainable for non-service of notice under Section 80 C.P.C. but decided the suit on merit. The learned lower appellate court concurred with the findings of the learned trial court. Both the courts held that suit is bad for non-service of notice under Section 80 C.P.C. 10. Section 80 C.P.C. prohibits institution of suit unless the conditions enumerated therein are satisfied. Sub-section (1) of Section 80 C.P.C. provides that no suit shall be instituted against the Government 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 from the service of notice in the manner prescribed. Sub-section 2 of Section 80 C.P.C. carves out exception. It enables the Court to grant urgent or immediate relief against the Government or a public officer in certain circumstances without service of notice as required under sub section (1) of Section 80 C.P.C.. Sub-section 2 of Section 80 C.P.C. carves out exception. It enables the Court to grant urgent or immediate relief against the Government or a public officer in certain circumstances without service of notice as required under sub section (1) of Section 80 C.P.C.. Proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 80 C.P.C. postulates 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). 11. In Gangappa Gurupadappa Gugwad Vrs. Rachawwa and others, AIR 1971 S.C. 442 , the apex Court held that where the plaintiff’s cause of action is against a Government and the plaint does not show that notice under Section 80 claiming relief was served in terms of the said section, it would be the duty of the Court to reject the plaint recording an order to that effect with reasons for the order. In such a case the Court should not embark upon a trial of all the issues involved and such rejection would not preclude the plaintiff from presenting a fresh plaint in respect of the same cause of action. 12. The necessary corollary is that once the plaint is presented along with an application under Section 80(2) of C.P.C, the Court shall pass an order. In the event the Court is satisfied that no urgent or immediate relief need be granted in the suit, it shall return the plaint for presentation after complying with the requirements of sub-section (1). No fault can be found with the plaintiff. A party can not be made to suffer on account of an act of the Court. There is a well-recognised maxim of equity, namely, actus curiae neminem gravabit which means an act of the court shall prejudice no man. This maxim is founded upon justice and good sense which serves a safe and certain guide for the administration of law. In view of the same, the courts below committed patent illegality in holding that suit is bad for non-service of notice under Section 80 C.P.C.. Accordingly, the substantial question of law no.(i) has been answered in favour of the plaintiff. 13. The learned appellate court held that the suit plot was recorded in the name of the Government under ‘Rakhit Khata’ with kissam ‘Unata Jojona Jogya’. Accordingly, the substantial question of law no.(i) has been answered in favour of the plaintiff. 13. The learned appellate court held that the suit plot was recorded in the name of the Government under ‘Rakhit Khata’ with kissam ‘Unata Jojona Jogya’. The land was not dereserved before issuance of lease patta. It was further held that the plaintiff was a Government servant at the time of issuance of lease patta and was not a landless person. He had sufficient landed properties. Thus, lease patta, vide Ext.1 is not a valid and genuine document. The learned appellate court negatived the plea of adverse possession. 14. The lease patta, vide Ext.1, shows that the same was unauthorizedly occupied by the plaintiff. The land was objectionable. Patta was granted without taking prior approval of the higher authority and without taking salami. The plaintiff was a Government servant. He was not a landless person. The land was recorded under Rakhit Khata (reserved land) for future development. In view of proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 7 of the Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment Act, no such settlement can be made, if the land recorded as Gochar, Rakhit or Sarbasadharan in any record-of-rights prepared under any law. The lease patta, vide Ext.1, is not valid. Adverse possession is a mixed question of fact and law. The plea of adverse possession has been negatived by the learned courts below. The substantial question of law enumerated in ground no.(ii) is answered in affirmative against the plaintiff. 15. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No costs.