JUDGMENT : M.A. ABDUL HAKHIM, J. 1. These four appeals at the instance of State Government and its Revenue Officers arise from two suits filed by two individuals as O.S.Nos.68/2007 and 78/2007 under S.14 of the Kerala Surveys and Boundaries Act, challenging the Re survey of the plaint schedule properties mentioned therein. 2. The appellants are the defendants 1 to 8. Vythiri Grama Panchayat is the 9th defendant. Both the suits were decreed in favour of the plaintiffs. The 9th defendant Panchayat filed A.S.Nos. 1/2019 and 2/2019 before the First Appellate Court challenging the judgments and decrees passed in both the suits. The said appeals were dismissed by the First Appellate Court by judgments and decrees dt. 15.11.2021. The defendants 1 to 8 have filed RSA No.539/2023 and RSA No.541/2023 challenging the judgments and decrees in AS No.2/2019 and AS No. 1/2019 respectively. The defendants 1 to 8 had filed AS No.12/2019 and 13/2019 challenging the judgment and decree in both the suits with Applications to condone delay of 279 days in filing the appeals. The First Appellate Court dismissed the Applications to condone delay and consequently dismissed the appeals also as per judgment and decree dt. 16.11.2020. RSA Nos. 579/2021 and 583/2021 are filed by the defendants 1 to 8 challenging the judgments and decrees in AS No. 12/2019 and 13/2019 respectively. 3. RSA Nos.579/2021 and 583/2021 are admitted formulating the following substantial question of law: 1. Whether it is proper to dismiss a delay petition without considering the valid contentions of the State which resulted in the dismissal of the appeal without hearing it on merit? 2. Is it proper to dismiss an appeal having merit merely on the basis of delay in a manner adversely affecting the right to appeal of the aggrieved party? 4. RSA Nos.539/2021 and 541/2023 are admitted formulating the following substantial questions of law: 1. Is the finding of the Trial Court, as well as the First Appellate Court, that the suit is not barred for want of notice under S.80 CPC justified? 5. The First Appellate Court considered the matter on merits in AS Nos.1/2019 and 2/2019, in which the Panchayat, as well as the State Government and its revenue officers, advanced arguments. Is the finding of the Trial Court, as well as the First Appellate Court, that the suit is not barred for want of notice under S.80 CPC justified? 5. The First Appellate Court considered the matter on merits in AS Nos.1/2019 and 2/2019, in which the Panchayat, as well as the State Government and its revenue officers, advanced arguments. Even though AS Nos.12/2019 and 13/2019 filed by the State and its officers were dismissed on the ground of delay without considering the matter on merits since their contentions are considered by the First Appellate Court in AS Nos. 1/2019 and 2/2019, the State and its officers could not be said to be aggrieved by the dismissal of AS No.12/2019 and 13/2019 on the ground of delay. Hence the substantial questions of law raised in RSA Nos.579/2021 and 583/2021 do not arise for consideration. Hence, I confine the consideration of substantial question of law formulated in RSA Nos.539/2023 and 541/2023 in these appeals. 6. I heard the learned Special Government Pleader(Revenue) Sri. M.H.Hanil Kumar for the appellants in these appeals and the learned Senior Counsel Sri.Ranjith Thampan instructed by Adv. Smt. P.R.Reena for the party respondents and the learned Counsel Sri. Manoj Ramaswamy for the Panchayat. 7. The only point argued by the learned Special Government Pleader in these appeals is that the suits are not maintainable for want of Notice under S.80 CPC. The learned Special Government Pleader argued that the Trial Court, as well as the First Appellate Court, acted illegally, holding that for the suits filed under S.14 of the Kerala Surveys and Boundaries Act, Notice under S.80 CPC is not required. The learned Special Government Pleader contended that the precedents relied on by the First Appellate Court namely, Raghunath Das v. Union of India [ AIR 1969 SC 674 ], Salem Advocate Bar Association T.N v. Union of India [ AIR 2005 SC 3353 ] and Azhakodi Devi Charitable Trust v. Commissioner HR & CE(Administration Department) [ 2007(1) KHC 110 ] are clearly distinguishable. The learned Special Government Pleader tried to distinguish the aforesaid decisions, contending that the State did not have any interest in the subject matters in those decisions, and hence, the Notice under S.80(1) of the CPC was found to be not required by the Courts. The learned Special Government Pleader tried to distinguish the aforesaid decisions, contending that the State did not have any interest in the subject matters in those decisions, and hence, the Notice under S.80(1) of the CPC was found to be not required by the Courts. Learned Special Government Pleader invited my attention to the decision in Azhakodi Devi Charitable Trust (supra) in which the respondents are only the authorities under the HR & CE Act and the State Government or its officers are not directly involved as the properties of the Government are not involved. Learned Special government pleader cited the decision of this Court in Srinagpuram Kambola Gowda Saraswath Brahmin Samooham Committee v. Cochin Board [ 1965 KLT 723 ] which is followed in Azhakodi Devi Charitable Trust (supra). The learned Special Government Pleader cited the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Government of Kerala and others v. Sudheer Kumar Sarma and others [ 2013(3) KLT 1005 ] in which it is held that suit filed against the Government without compliance of S.80 CPC cannot be regularised simply by filing an application under S.80(2) CPC. The learned Special Government Pleader cited the decision of this Court in Santhamma v. Kerala State and others [ 2019(2) KHC 585 ] in which it is held that Notice under S.80(1) CPC is a condition precedent for the institution of a suit against the Government or a Public officer and that it imposes a statutory and nonqualified obligation and in the absence thereof the suit is not maintainable except where S.80(2) of the Code applies. The learned Special Government Pleader cited the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bihari Chowdhary and another v. State of Bihar and others [ 1984(2) SCC 627 ] in which it is held that it is a settled law that a suit against the Government or a Public Officer, to which the requirement of a prior notice under S. 80 CPC is attracted, cannot be validly instituted until the expiration of the period of two months next after the notice in writing has been delivered to the authorities concerned in the manner prescribed for in the section and if filed before the expiry of the period, the suit has to be dismissed as not maintainable. On the strength of these decisions the learned Special Government Pleader argued that Notice under S.80 CPC is mandatory for the suits filed under S.14 of the Kerala Surveys and Boundaries Act. If such notice is received by the officers concerned, it gives an opportunity to the officers to correct the mistakes, if any, and thus avoid litigation. There is no separate procedure provided under the Kerala Surveys and Boundaries Act for filing a suit under S.14 of the Kerala Surveys and Boundaries Act. In such a situation, the suits filed under the said provisions are governed by the provisions of the CPC, and hence, Notice under S.80 of the CPC is mandatory. 8. The learned Counsel for the Panchayat also supported the arguments of the learned Special Government Pleader. 9. The learned Senior Counsel for the party respondents/ plaintiffs argued that a suit under S.14 of the Kerala Surveys and Boundaries Act is a special suit filed as per the provisions of the Statute. It is a continuation of proceedings after the publication of a Notification under S.13 of the Kerala Surveys and Boundaries Act. Nothing could be done by the Officers concerned after the publication of the Notification under S.13 of the Act, and hence, no purpose would be served by serving notice to the State or Survey officers. The Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court have specifically referred to the purpose of issuance of S.80 CPC Notice, and when the principle laid down therein is considered, no purpose would be served by serving S.80 Notice to the State and Revenue Officers in the case on hand. 10. I have considered the rival contentions. 11. In view of the aforesaid rival contentions, the question to be considered in these Regular Second Appeals is whether a Notice under S.80(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure is required for filing the suits under S.14 of the Kerala Surveys and Boundaries Act. 12. Both the suits are filed by the plaintiffs without serving S.80(1) CPC Notice to the State and its Officials who are impleaded as defendants 1 to 8. No application for leave under Section 80(2) CPC was also filed by the plaintiffs. 12. Both the suits are filed by the plaintiffs without serving S.80(1) CPC Notice to the State and its Officials who are impleaded as defendants 1 to 8. No application for leave under Section 80(2) CPC was also filed by the plaintiffs. The said suits were filed with the averments that the right of the plaintiff under S.14 of the Kerala Survey and Boundaries Act, 1961 to institute Civil Suit challenging the Survey settlement is a statutory right conferred under the said Act and hence not qualified or limited under S.80 of the Code of Civil Procedure regarding notice; that no Notice under S.80(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure is required to be issued to the defendants before filing the suit since the relief of injunction prayed by the plaintiff is of urgent nature; that the remedy of injunction against forcible demolition or interference of the building construction in progress in the plaint schedule property is an ancillary relief incident to the relief sought under S.14 of the Kerala Surveys and Boundaries Act and hence the suit is maintainable as per law. 13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the object of Notice under S.80(1) CPC in the decision Reghunath Das (supra). It is apposite to extract the relevant portion of paragraph 8 of the said decision. “8. The object of the notice contemplated by that section is to give to the concerned Governments and public officers opportunity to reconsider the legal position and to make amends or settle the claim, if so advised without litigation. The legislative intention behind that section in our opinion is that public money and time should not be wasted on unnecessary litigation and the Government and the public officers should be given a reasonable opportunity to examine the claim made against them lest they should be drawn into avoidable litigations. The purpose of law is advancement of justice. The provisions in S.80, Civil Procedure Code are not intended to be used as boobytraps against ignorant and illiterate persons.” 14. In the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Salem Advocate Bar Association (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the object of the Notice under S.80(1) CPC and held that the underlying object is to curtail litigation. 15. The provisions in S.80, Civil Procedure Code are not intended to be used as boobytraps against ignorant and illiterate persons.” 14. In the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Salem Advocate Bar Association (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the object of the Notice under S.80(1) CPC and held that the underlying object is to curtail litigation. 15. In view of the aforesaid decisions, it could be held that the Notice under S.80 CPC is not mandated if the Public officers do not hold the power or authority to re-look or re-visit the order or proceedings. S.13 of the Kerala Surveys and Boundaries Act provides that when the proceeding initiated under S.4 and S.5 for survey of any land or boundary is completed in accordance with the orders passed under Ss.9, 10, or S.11, the Survey Officer shall notify the fact in the Gazette. S.13 further provides that unless the survey so notified is modified by an order of the Collector under S.13A or is modified by a decree of a civil court under S.14, the record of survey shall be a conclusive proof that the boundaries determined and recorded therein have been correctly determined and recorded. S.13A providing revisional powers to the District Collector was inserted by Act 29 of 2007 dt 15.10.2007 with effect from 06.01.2006. Before the introduction of S.13A, the only remedy available to a person aggrieved by the determination under S.13 was to institute a suit under S.14 of the Act within one year from the date of Gazette Notification under S.13, to set aside or modify the determination. There occurred several cases in which the aggrieved persons noticed the errors and illegalities in the survey after the limitation period of one year and such persons were left remediless. In order to address the grievances of such persons S.13A was introduced in the Statute. S.14 was also suitably amended enabling the aggrieved persons to institute the suit within one year from the date of Notification issued under S.13A(2) to modify or revise any determination under S.13A(1). 16. Combined reading of Ss.13 and 14 of the Survey and Boundary Act would indicate that on publication of the Gazette Notification under S.13, the Survey Officer has become functus officio. 16. Combined reading of Ss.13 and 14 of the Survey and Boundary Act would indicate that on publication of the Gazette Notification under S.13, the Survey Officer has become functus officio. After the introduction of S.13A when such Gazette Notification under S.13 is published, the aggrieved person has got two remedies - either to file a revision before the Collector under S.13A or to institute a suit under S.14. If the aggrieved person opts to file a suit, no purpose would be served by serving a Notice under S.80(1) CPC either to the Survey Officer or to the State Government as they do not have any right or authority to set aside or modify the determination notified in the Gazette Notification. Of course, the District Collector has got power under S.13A of the Surveys and Boundaries Act, but it is a revisional power which is distinct and separate from the suit provided under S.14 of the Kerala Surveys and Boundaries Act. If a Notice under S.80(1) of the CPC is given, it could not be considered by the Collector invoking his revisional power under S.13A of the Act even if it is found that there is any error or illegality in the determination. Hence, no useful purpose would be served by serving a Notice under S.80(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure prior to the filing of a suit under S.14 of the Kerala Surveys and Boundaries Act. 17. This Court had occasion to consider a similar question in Srinagpuram (supra). In the said decision, the question considered by this Court was whether the want of notice under S.124 (1) of the Travancore Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act would be a bar for the institution of the suit under S.114(2) of the said Act. S. 124(1) of the said Act and S.80(1) of the CPC are similarly worded. S.114(2) provided that any person aggrieved by the decision of the Board may, within six months from the date of publication of the decision of the Board in the Gazette, institute a suit in the Court to modify or set aside such decision. This Court held that as per the scheme of S.114, the decision of the Board shall be final only subject to the final decree in the suit under sub-section (2) and that it will be a continuation of the proceedings under subsection (1) of S.114. This Court held that as per the scheme of S.114, the decision of the Board shall be final only subject to the final decree in the suit under sub-section (2) and that it will be a continuation of the proceedings under subsection (1) of S.114. Going by the principle laid down by the said decision, the suit provided under S.14 of the Kerala Surveys and Boundaries Act could be treated as a continuation of the proceedings which is notified as per S.13. The decision of this Court in Srinagpuram (supra) was followed by this Court in Azhakodi Devi Charitable Trust (supra) in which it is held that there is no necessity to send a Notice under S.80 CPC for a suit instituted under S.62 of the Madras Hindu Religious Charitable Endowments Act. In the said decision, it was held that when the defendants in the suit in the exercise of the powers provided under S.67 and 61 of the Act have already decided the matter and passed quasi-judicial orders, there is no question of reconsidering the same by receipt of a Notice as provided under S.80(1) CPC. In the case of S.14 of the Kerala Surveys and Boundaries Act, the Survey Officer does not have any power to reconsider the issue and in such circumstances, no useful purpose would be served by serving a Notice under S.80(1) CPC before the institution of a suit under S.14 of the Kerala Surveys and Boundaries Act. In the decision, Azhakodi Devi Charitable Trust (supra) this Court particularly referred to the Division Bench decision of the High Court of Madras in Tholappa Iyengar v. Executive Officer [(1993) 2 Madras LW 537] in which the question considered was whether notice under S.80 CPC is required when a statute itself provides filing of a suit. The Madras High Court specifically held that when a special procedure is created and a special jurisdiction is conferred for a certain type of adjudication upon a public officer and in that official capacity he is required to decide a dispute or a matter and the suit is provided as a remedy under the Special Act for cancellation or modification of the order of such public officer, S.80 of the Code of Civil Procedure will not be attracted. I am in respectful agreement with the view expressed by the High Court of Madras in Tholappa Iyengar (supra). I am in respectful agreement with the view expressed by the High Court of Madras in Tholappa Iyengar (supra). In the case of a suit under S14 of the Kerala Surveys and Boundaries Act also, it is a remedy under the Special Act, and hence, S.80 CPC will not be attracted. 18. The decisions cited by the learned Special Government Pleader in Santhamma, Government of Kerala and others and Bihari Chowdhary (supra) deals with the question of giving notice to the Government and public officers before filing a suit of general nature and it does not cover the suits of special nature like the suits provided under the Statutes. Those decisions are clearly distinguishable. 19. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I hold that the Notice under S.80(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure is not required to be served for the suits filed under S.14 of the Kerala Surveys and Boundaries Act. The Trial Court, as well as the First Appellate Court, are fully justified in entering a finding that the suits instituted by the party respondents in these appeals are not barred for want of notice under S.80 of the CPC. The substantial questions of law formulated in RSA No.539/2023 and 541/2023 are answered in the affirmative and against the appellants. The substantial questions of law formulated in RSA Nos.579 and 583 of 2021 do not arise for consideration for the reasons stated above. 20. All the Regular Second Appeals are dismissed without costs.