IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.394 of 2008 Ashok Kumar Singh, S/O Baban Singh, resident of Village Kharvanian, P.S. Dhansoin, District- Buxar --- Defendant --- Petitioenr. Versus Shushila Devi D/O late Gupteshwar Singh, at present resident of Village- Kharvanian, P.S. Dhansoin, District- Buxar, permanent address- W/O Ramashish Singh, R/O Katiyara, P.S. Dinara, District-Rohtas at Sasaram ---- Plaintiff ----Opposite Party. -------------- 3. 3.8.2010 Heard Mr. Bachan Jee Ojha for the petitioner, and Mr. Anjani Kumar Sinha No.1 for the opposite party. The defendant of Title Suit No. 81 of 2002 ( Sushila Devi Vrs. Baban Singh & Others), has preferred this application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure and is directed against the order dated 26.7.2007, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr.division) II, Buxar, whereby the defendant’s application under Section 4(C) of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), has been rejected. 2. The plaintiff has instituted the suit for declaration that the five sale deeds indicated in the plaint are null and void and also for partition of the suit properties. During the pendency of the suit, the defendant (the petitioner herein) filed an application under section 4 (C) of the Act stating 2 therein that the consolidation proceedings are in progress in the three Maujas in question, i.e. Kharwania, Matukpur and Pyarechak, where the suit properties are situate. Therefore, the suit can not proceed in view of the provisions of section 4(C) of the Act. The application was rejected by the order dated 26.7.2007, mainly on the ground that the defendant has not been able to satisfy the court that consolidation proceedings are in progress in the three villages. This was followed by a review application at the instance of the defendant which has been rejected by the order dated 22.11.2007, on the grounds that it is basically a suit for declaration that the five sale deeds in question are null and void and civil court alone has jurisdiction over the subject matter. It has also been stated that review petition has also been rejected on the ground that there is no material on record to show that the consolidation proceedings are in progress in three villages. 3. While assailing the validity of the impugned order, learned counsel for the defendant (petitioner) submits that the learned court below has failed to appreciate the scope of section 4(C) of the Act. He relies on the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Seikh Haidar Zan Vrs. 3 Md. Yusuf Ansari & Anr. , 2000(2) P.L.J.R. 338. He submits that the consolidation operations are in progress and, therefore, the civil court has no jurisdiction to proceed in the matter. 4. Learned counsel for the plaintiff (opposite party) submits that the consolidation proceedings are over in three villages and, therefore, the bar of section 4(C) is now over. He next submits that it is basically a suit for declaration of title deeds as null and void and, therefore, the consolidation proceedings have no jurisdiction over the same. Such a suit can be decided by the civil court alone. He relies on the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Gopal Tewari & Anr. Vs. Umakant Tewari & Ors., 2007(4) P.L.J.R. 653. 5. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It appears from the materials placed before us that it is basically a suit where the plaintiff seeks declaration that five sale deeds in question are null and void. Law is well settled that civil court has alone jurisdiction over such a relief sought for by the plaintiff, and the suit shall not abate even if the consolidation proceedings are in progress in the 4 area where the land is situate. Learned counsel for the opposite party rightly relied on the decision of Gopal Tewari (supra). Furthermore, we find that the consolidation proceedings are surely over. It appears that consolidation proceedings concluded about 20 years ago in the Village Pyarechak where the entire consolidation proceeding was concluded, and after confirmation delivery of possession as per the Chaks has been made to the raiyats. It is evident that consolidation proceedings are over in village Pyarechak. So far villages Kharwania and Matukpur are concerned, consolidation proceedings are over, and the final recommendations are pending approval of the State Government. Even if consolidation proceedings are taken in law to be pending in two areas, suit will not abate with respect to part of the suit properties. In any view, the first point is alone sufficient for dismissal of this civil revision application. 6. We do not find any merit in this application. It is accordingly dismissed. Vinay/ ( S. K. Katriar,J. )