IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13612 of 2011 Md.Akbar Ali Versus Nagendra Paswan & Ors ---------------------------------- 2. 23.08.2011 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The defendant petitioner has filed this application under Article 227 of the constitution of India against the order dated 27.5.2011 passed by Munsif Sadar Sitamarhi in Title Suit No. 46 of 2009 whereby the learned court below rejected the application filed by the defendant petitioner under Section 4(b) and 4(c) of the Consolidation Act for passing an order of abating the title suit filed by the plaintiff respondent. Learned counsel Mr. Kripa Nand Jha appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that notification under Section 3 of the Consolidation Act has already been issued in the year 1971 and, therefore, in view of the provision as contained under Section 4(c) of the Consolidation Act the suit filed by the plaintiff respondent is abated but the learned court below wrongly held that the Consolidation Act is not applicable. It appears that the plaintiff respondent filed the suit for declaration of title and confirmation of possession and also for declaring that the sale deed executed on 6.8.1984 in favour of the defendant is void. The learned court below found that so far these 2 reliefs which the plaintiff prayed for is not within the jurisdiction of the consolidation officer and, therefore, held that the Act is not applicable. So far Section 4-b and 4-c is concerned admittedly, in view of the fact that the suit has been filed only for declaration of title and confirmation of possession and for declaration of the sale deed is void. These reliefs which plaintiffs have claimed cannot be granted by the consolidation officer. Section 4(c) will apply only in regard to which the proceeding can or ought to be taken under the Consolidation Act. As stated above so far the reliefs claimed by the petitioner could not have been taken before the consolidation officer. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the suit is barred under the principle of res judicata because the proceeding of mutation is pending before the revisional court. I do not agree with the learned counsel that the finding or decision of the mutation proceeding will operate as res judicata. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. S.S. (Mungeshwar Sahoo,J.)