S. N. Jha, J.

1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the collector, Muzaffarpur, in Misc. Case no.29 of 1989-90 holding the sale deed dated 4.7.1975 executed by late bindeshwar Thakur and Asharfi thakur as void for want of sanction under Sec.5 of the Bihar consolidation of Holdings and prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 (in short the Act ). The order has been passed on a petition by respondent No.2 under Sec.32 of the Act. According to the petitioner, the land in question being orchard is beyond the purview of the Act and hence provisions of Sec.5 are not applicable and the transfer deed cannot be said to be void.

2. The main plank of the argument is Sec.2 (3) of the Act. According to the Counsel by reason of the provisions of Sec.2 (3), orchard lies outside the Consolidation proceedings and, therefore, are not amenable to Sec.5. At the very outset, I would like to observe that section 2 contains the definition clause and as, well known, the definition clause cannot be read as substantive provisions of a statute. They can be looked into only in aid of construction of the substantive provisions.

3. The Act has been enacted "to provide for consolidation of holdings