IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8005 of 2011 MOST.KESARI KUER Versus VISHWANATH MANJHI & ORS ----------- 5. 10.05.2011 I.A. No. 3375 of 2011 has been filed for substitution of heirs of deceased respondent No.21 Raghubansh Prasad Sharma. It is stated that Raghubansh Prasad Sharma, respondent No.21 died on 14.2.2008 and the heirs of the deceased be substituted as mentioned in paragraph no.2 of the interlocutory application. Having heard the parties, I.A. No. 3375 of 2001 is allowed. Let the name of respondent No.21 Raghubansh Prasad Sharma be deleted and in his place, the names of heirs mentioned in paragraph no.2 of the interlocutory application be incorporated. This petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order passed by the trial court i.e. 2nd Munsif, Chapra, in Title Suit No. 75 of 1995 abating suit of the plaintiff- petitioner applying the provisions of Section 4 (C) of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 (hereinafter called as the Act), on the ground that as the notification under Section 3 of the Act has been issued in the year 1978 and much thereafter, in the year 2004 the land in dispute was declared as homestead. The Act defines the (holdings) as well as (land). The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the that 2 the land in suit is homestead land and is not connected with the agricultural land appertaining land of the residential house, therefore in view of the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bettiah Estate vs. Pushpa Devi and Ors. reported in PLJR 1986 Page-222 the suit could not have abated. The Division Bench in this judgment has dealt with the definition of land as under:- “„Land‟ means agricultural land, and includes horticultural land, Kharaur land, cultivable waste land, homesteads, tanks, wells and water channels. “ The perusal of definition of land quoted in the said and that found in the statute it appears inclusive part of the definition does not exempt the land from the corner stone of land being agricultural in nature or co-related of the same. The definition clearly says that the land means agriculture land and thereafter, includes horticulture land, Kharaur land, land with bamboo clumps, pasture land, cultivable waste land, homesteads, tanks wells and water channels,. The „words‟ homesteads tanks, wells water channels have not been quantified by the word land. Thus, homesteads tanks, wells and water channels have independently been included in the definition. It is well settled law of inclusive definition as held by the division Bench in this judgment also that the widest meaning should be given to inclusive definition. The Division Bench did not notice that in the definition of agricultural land has been 3 mentioned independently and others are included in the section. The Division Bench has held as under:- “Land is to mean agricultural land. However, this basic concept is extended by expressly including there certain things, which though may be co-related to agriculture, are not strictu sensu land as such, for example, homesteads, tanks, wells and water channels which in ordinary parlance, are not understood as land simplicitor or agricultural land as such. However, the second part of the definition brings those thigs also within the definition of „land, by an inclusive definition. I am inclined to hold that though the inclusive portion of the definition may be interpreted somewhat widely and liberally.” The Division Bench has held that there must be connection of the land included after the agricultural land with the agricultural land. Thus, I proceed to supply the reasons which is available in the statute itself. The provision of section 3 of the Act provides object of the Act which says that with object of effecting consolidation of holdings for the purpose of better cultivation of land in area. The words “better cultivation” used in Section 3 of the Act itself indicates that land must be worth to be used as agriculture land. Therefore, before abating any suit, a finding has to be recorded by the trial court in the 4 light of observation made above and then to abate the suit under Section 4(c) of the Act which has not been done in this case. Therefore, the order of abatement is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the trial court for further orders after hearing both parties on merit. In the light of observation made above, the petition is disposed of. Ravi/- ( Prakash Chandra Verma, j.)