IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.2308 of 2005 Jamuni Devi, Wife of Fudeni Pandit, Resident of village- Rusulpur @ Rusul Nagar, P.S.-Lalganj, P.O.-Jaintipur, District-Vaishali. -Defendant-Petitioner. Versus 1.Smt.Urmila Devi ,Wife of Madan Singh, Resident of Village- Rusulpur, P.S.-Lalganj, P.O.-Jaintipur, District- Vaishali. ----Plaintiff-Opposite Party Ist Set. 2.Fudeni Pandit, Son of Late Jadu Pandit, Resident of Village- Rusulpur @ Rusul Nagar, P.S.-Lalganj, P.O.- Jaintipur, District-Vaishali. -Defendant-Opposite Party 2nd Set. ----------- 05. 13.10.2011 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 15.09.2005 passed by Munsif Ist, Vaishali at Hajipur by which the petition filed by the petitioner, who was defendant in the suit, under Section 4(c) and Section 37 of Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred as Act)has been rejected. 2 There is no dispute that the suit has been filed for declaration of title and recovery of possession over the suit properties mentioned in schedule of the plaint and also for mesne profits. The plaintiff has alleged forcibly dispossession at the hands of the defendants and therefore the claim of mesne profits has been made. The defendants appeared in the suit and filed the written statement contesting the claim of the plaintiff. From the order sheet it also appears that the issues have been framed on 29.01.2002 and some witnesses have also been examined during the course of hearing. The defendants thereafter filed a petition praying for abatement of the suit under Section 4 (c) and Section 37 of the Act and has submitted that in view of the notification made in the year 2004 under the Act the suit cannot proceed further as the consolidation courts after notification would have the jurisdiction to decide the issues raised in the suit. The learned court below after considering the materials on record has come to the finding that the defendants in paragraph 26 of their written statement have admitted that the suit property consists of a house in which the defendants are residing 3 with the family. Besides, considering other aspects also, the learned court below has rejected the petition filed by the defendant petitioner. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the suit has been filed for declaration of title as well as for recovery of possession and mesne profits with clear assertion by the plaintiff that he has been forcibly dispossessed from the suit land by the defendants. The defendants in their written statement have made categorical statement that the suit property consists of a residential house being used by the defendants and their family members for their residence. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the suit house is connected with agriculture and as such it will be included in the definition of land as given in the act itself. However in view of the clear and specific acceptance that the defendants and their family members are residing in the house constructed over the suit land it will be far stretching the meaning of land as given in the Act to include a residential house. The meaning of land as given in Section 2(a) of the Act has to be considered alongwith the meaning of “holding” and “consolidation” 4 as defined in Section 2 of the Act. The primary purpose of the Act, which is clear from its different provisions, is to rearrange the parcels of land to make them compact for the purpose of cultivation. The learned court below has rightly come to the conclusion that suit property is not covered within the provisions of the Act. Moreover in 2008(4) PLJR 472, a bench of this Court has passed the following order. “5. In view of the available material that has come on record, we are satisfied that the writ petition may be disposed of by the following order:- (i) “….The consolidation process under Section 3 of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956, in all the districts of the State of Bihar, phase-wise or otherwise shall be completed as early as possible and in no case later than 31st December, 2010…”. (ii) Six monthly progress report in this connection shall be sent by the Director, Consolidation, Bihar, Patna to the Registrar General of this Court. First of such report shall be sent on or before 5th February, 2007. 5 In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances there does not appear to any illegality and jurisdictional error in the impugned order. This civil revision application has no merit and it is, accordingly, dismissed. Nitesh ( V. Nath, J.)