The provisions of S.4(1)(b) and 4(1)(c) of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956, which provide for the abatement of suits and proceedings in respect of land in areas where consolidation operations are ongoing, apply to all such areas, regardless of when the notification under S.3 of the Act was issued.

1. Before going to the merits, learned counsel for the appellants pressed before me his application filed in this Court on 20-5-80 and contended that in view of the provisions under S.4(c) of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) the appeal in this Court, the appeal in the court below and the suit have abated. He has relied upon notification issued in this regard on 12-10-1972 under sec. 3 of the Act and the fact that the land in dispute although 38 decimals in area is bakasht, and thus used for agricultural purposes. Learned counsel for the respondents in their separate contentions, however, have disputed the claim of the appellants that the appeal and the suit have abated. The parties have been heard at length.

2. By Bihar Act 27 of 1975 substantial amendment was introduced in the Act including the provisions contained in (S.4(1)?) Cls.(b) and (c) thereof which runs as follows :-

"Effect of notification under S.3(1) of the Act - Upon the publication of the notification under sub-sec.(1) of S.3 in the official gazette the consequences, as hereinafter set forth, shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, from the date specified in the notification till the close of the consolidation operation, ensue in the area to which the notification relates, namely.- xx xx xx xx

(b) no suit or other legal proceeding, in respect of any land in such areas shall be entertained in any court, and in calculating period of limitation applicable to such suits or proceedings, such period shall not be counted.

(c) every proceeding for the correction of records and every suit and proceedings in respect of declaration of rights or interest in any land lying in the area or for declaration or adjudication of any other right in regard to which proceedings can or ought to be taken under this Act, pending before any court or authority whether of the first instance or of appeal, reference or revision, shall, on an order being passed in that behalf by the court or authority before whom such suit or proceeding is pending stands abated."

Evidently in view of the definition of land in S.2(9) of the Act the land in dispute being bakasht of an agriculturist shall attract the provisions under S.4(1)(b) and 4(1)(c) of the Act.

3. Mr. B. K. Roy as also Mr. Sachidanand Jha, learned counsel for the respondents, however, have contended that:

(1) As the provisions under S.4(1)(b) and 4(1) (c) of the Act have been introduced in the Act in the year 1975 and the notification in the instant case under S.3 of the Act had been made before the amendment came in force, the provision as to the abatement of the suit shall not apply to the instant case.

(2) The land in question is a part of the commercial site being in vicinity of a public road and in fact being used as such by establishing two shops therein and as such it is not agricultural land. Since it is not agricultural land the provision of abatement cannot be applied to it.

(3) Although not specifically praying for declaration that settlement made by Raj Rano Kuer in favour of Thakur Prasad was invalid in fact the suit embraces a relief for a declaration to the said effect and as the plea raised in this regard is that such settlement was without legal necessity, the grievance made against the settlement, if accepted, alone would defeat the settlement. In short the settlement in question is only voidable and not void. This being the position whether a document is voidable or not is not a plea which can be raised before an authority under the Act. The suit for this reason shall not abate.

4. On the first question the answer is available in the amendment Act itself. The provisions under S.4(1)(b) and 4(1)(c) of the Act have been introduced as if they existed in the Act from the day it came in force. That being the position, it shall fictionally be deemed to be in existence in the year 1972 also when the notification under S.3 of the Act w