S. K. Ghoudhuri, J.

In this writ application filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner challenges the order passed by the Sub-divisional Officer (respondent no.2) dated 6.7.78 contained in Annexure 1 initiating a proceeding under section 147 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, show cause notice issued to the petitioner dated 17.2.72 (Annexure 2) and the order contained in Annexure 4 passed by respondent no,2 dated 18.8.78 rejecting the preliminary objection raised by the petitioner that in view of section 4(b) of the Bihar Consolidation of Holding and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 (Bihar Act, XXII of 1956) (hereinafter called the Consolidation Act) the initiation of the proceeding under section 147 was without jurisdiction and could not proceed.

2. The dispute related to a portion of plot no. 355 appertaining to R.S. Khata No. 134 in village Ghateya, Police Station Kudra. District Rohtas over which a right of user as rasta has been claimed by respondent no, 1. According to respondent no.1 the petitioner began interfering with the exercise of such right and therefore, an application was filed by respondent no.1 before the Sub-divisional Officer for taking action under section 147 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It appears that in pursuance of the said application the present proceeding was initiated on 6.7.78 in which show cause notice contained in Annexure 2 was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner accordingly filed his show cause. A preliminary objection was raised by the petitioner before the Sub-divisional Officer challenging his jurisdiction to initiate the present proceeding and also to continue with the same. The aforesaid preliminary objection having been rejected by an order contained in Annexure 4 the petitioner has come up to this Court.

3. It has been stated in the writ application that Awadh Bihari Singh, father of respondent no.1, who was a member of the Advisory Committee constituted under section 7 of the Consolidation Act, raised an objection claiming that a pathway may be constructed though plot no. 355 so as to connect plot no. 358 with plot no. 213. It bas been further, stated that the Consolidation Officer, Kudru after hearing the parties rejected the claim of the father of respondent no. 1 by order dated 29.7.77, a copy of which has been made Annexure 3 to the writ petition. Annexure 3 shows that the authorities found that plot no. 355 is situated in between the two plots viz plot no. 353 and 354 over which houses stand and plot no, 359 which has been claimed to be petitioner's Sehan Land which according to the petitioner may be required for extension of his house. In that view of the matter the claim of the father of respondent no.1 for construction of a path way through plot no. 355 was rejected. As to what is the present stage of the consolidation proceeding has oat been disclosed in the counter affidavit.

4. Mr. Pranab Chatterji, in support of this writ application contended that in view of the order contained in Annexure 3 passed under the Consolidation Act, by the Consolidation Officer the initiation of the present proceeding under section 147 Cr. P. C. was without jurisdiction. Learned counsel drew our attention to clauses (b) and (c) of section 4 of the Consolidation Act. Consequences which would ensue upon the publication of the notification under sub-section (1) of section 3 have been enumerated in clauses (a), (b) and (C) of section 4, clause (a) is not relevant and therefore I quote section 4 leaving the said clause as also the first four provisions to clause (c).

4. "Effect of notification under section 3(1) of the Act, upon the publication of the notification under sub-section (1) of section 3 in the official gazette the consequences, as hereinafter set forth, shall subject to the provisions of the Act, from the date specified in the notification till the close of the consolidation operation, ensue in the area to which the notification relates namel