IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1705 of 2005 1. Ram Hari Bind (since dead and substituted by his legal heirs and representatives vide order dated 30.11.2009), Son of late Badan Bind. 1 (i) Ramawati Kuer, Widow of late Ram Hari Bind. 2. Bhanu Prasad @ Bhanu Bind. 3. Sanjay Kumar @ Sanjay Bind. 4. Anil Kumar @ Anil Bind. 5. Ashok Kumar @ Ashok Bind. All 2 to 5 are sons of late Ram Hari Bind and are residents of Village- Ramgarh, P.O. Badhauna, P.S. Chainpur, District-Kaimur (Bhabhua). …..Defendants-Petitioners Versus 1. Bandhu Bind (since dead and substituted by his legal heirs and representatives vide order dated 12.04.2010), Son of late Ghurhu Bind. 2. Chandrika Bind. 3. Birbal Bind. 4. Munni Bind. 5. Jita Bind (since dead and substituted by his legal heirs and representatives vide order dated 06.11.2009). All 2 to 5 are sons of late Bandhu Bind. 5 (i) Shyamrathi Kuer, widow of late Jita Bind. 5 (ii) Chhotu Bind. 5 (iii) Upesh Bind. 5 (iv) Babloo Bind (Minor) All 5 (ii) to (iv) are sons of late Jita Bind. 6. Dhiraj Bind, Son of Chandrika Bind. All are residents of Village- Ramgarh, P.O. Badhauna, P.S. Chainpur, District-Kaimur (Bhabhua). ….Plaintiffs-Opp. Parties 7. Rambilap Bind. 8. Sankatha Bind. 9. Ram Dhari Bind. All 7 to 9 are residents of Village- Ramgarh, P.O. Badhauna, P.S. Chainpur, District-Kaimur (Bhabhua). …..Plaintiffs-Opposite Parties ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Arabind Nath Pandey, Advocate. For the Opp. Parties : Md. Waliur Rahman, Advocate. ----------- 2 12/ 28.04.2011 Heard. 2. The petitioners are aggrieved by an order dated 04.07.2005 passed by learned Sub-Judge 1st, Bhabhua in Title Suit No.269 of 2004, whereby a petition filed on behalf of defendants-petitioners herein under Section 4 (b) of The Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 (in short Act) for rejection of the plaint/dismissal of the suit has been rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that a notification in terms of Section 3 of the Act was issued on 02.11.1993, therefore, the suit filed by the plaintiffs-opposite parties in the year 2004, was barred by Section 4 (b) of the Act and could not have been entertained by learned Sub-Judge under the mandate of Section 4 (b) of the Act. According to him, a notification under Section 26-A of the Act has not been issued, therefore, it would be deemed that notification under Section 3 of the Act is still in vogue for the area in question. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no.6 has strongly opposed the prayer 3 made in the present Civil Revision application. According to him, it is true that a notification under Section 3 of the Act was issued in the year 1993, but subsequently, under the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, a notification under Section 4-A of the Act, cancelling the notification under Section 3 of the Act, was issued by the State Government. Therefore, in his submissions, the effect of notification under Section 3 of the Act will be deemed to have been wiped off. He has also placed reliance on a judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Paras Nath Rai Vs. The State of Bihar, reported in 2002 (3) PLJR 785. 5. On perusal of the impugned order, I find that learned Sub-Judge has also taken notice of the fact that though originally, a notification under Section 3 of the Act was issued, but subsequently, that notification was cancelled by issuance of a notification under Section 4 -A of the Act. Therefore, consolidation proceeding cannot be said to be in operation in the area, where suit land is situate. Furthermore, in view of issuance of notification 4 under Section 4-A of the Act, there is no requirement of issuance of any notification under Section 26-A of the Act for the area in question. 6. For the reasons recorded above, this Court does not find any legal infirmity or material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order impugned. Consequently, this Civil Revision petition has to fail. It is accordingly, dismissed, but no costs. 7. However, it would be open to the petitioners to file an appropriate petition before the court below, if and when some new materials are there to demonstrate that in fact, a notification under Section 3 of the Act has either been reissued or the consolidation proceeding is actually in vogue in the area concerned under some order of Hon’ble Apex Court. Anjani/ ( Birendra Prasad Verma, J.)