BIRENDRA PRASAD SINHA, J.

1. Whether or not a suit and a proceeding In respect of declaration of rights or interest in any land shall partially abate under Sec. 4(c) of the Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is the question which has come up for consideration in this case.

2. The Act provides for consolidation of holdings and prevention of fragmentation of land. Sec.3 of the Act provides that with the object of effecting consolidation of holding for the purpose of better cultivation of land in any area, the State Government may, declare its intention to make a scheme for consolidation of holdings in that area by a notification in the official Gazette. Sec. 4 enumerates the consequences that may ensue in the area to which the notification under sec. 3(1) of the Act relates from the date specified in the notification till the close of consolidation operations. The consolidation operation closes by issue of a notification envisaged in sec. 26 of the Act. One of the consequences is enumerated in sec. 4(c) of the Act which reads as under :-

"Every proceeding for the correction of records and every suit and proceeding in respect of declaration of rights or interest in any land lying in the area or for declaration or adjudication of or 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 of authority before whom such suit or proceeding is pending stand abated."

Section 4(c) came up for consideration before a Special Bench of this Court in Ram Krit Singh V/s. State of Bihar, 1979 BBCJ (H.C.) 259 : (AIR 1979 Patna 250). It was held that upon the publication of the notification under sec. 3(1) of the Act a suit and a proceeding in respect of declaration of rights or interest in any land lying in the area, pending before any court or authority, shall stand abated. However, there may be a composite suit in which a prayer is made for the grant of a relief relating to title to land and other quite independent of it regarding which proceedings cannot be taken under this Act. In the case of Ram Krit Singh (supra) it was observed that this type of a composite suit will not abate as a whole. In other words the suit relating to the relief or reliefs unconnected with the declaration and determination of title to land shall not abate. In the case of Manji Ram V/s. State of Bihar, 1979 BLJ 493 (1) a learned single Judge of this Court passed an order of partial abatement of the suit and held that the partition suit shall proceed in respect of houses, cash money and orchard etc. The suit was for partition of properties including agricultural land, houses, orchard, money etc.

3 A plain reading of Sec. 4 of the Act itself provides the answer to the question posed in this case. The words "any land lying in the area" occurring in Sec. 4 of the Act are significant. Reading it along with Sec.3(1) of the Act the consequences that follows is that upon publication of a notification under Sec.3(1) of the Act, a suit in respect of declaration of right or interest in "any land lying in the area" for which the Government has declared its intention to make a scheme for consolidation of holdings shall not proceed and shall abate. It follows that there shall be no abatement of any suit in respect of any land lying outside the area of consolidation operations. If in a composite suit, the suit relating to reliefs unconnected with the declaration and determination of title to a land does not abate in relation to such controversy, there is no reason why in a suit of this nature, the suit in relation to the properties in respect of which there is no notification under Sec.3(1) of the Act, shall abate. In my opinion, therefore, a suit or a proceeding can partially abate. It will abate in respect of th