Sarwar Ali, A.C.J. :

This application in revision is directed against an order where it has been held that Title Suit 190 of 1969 bas abated under the provisions of section 4(1)(c) of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act. 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').

2. The plaintiffs-petitioners brought a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession in respect of the suit property. There was also claim for mesne profits and for permanent Injunction restraining defendants first party from constructing a pucca building on the suit land or changing the status quo. During the pendency of the suit an application was filed stating that as the consolidation proceedings were going on in the village in question the suit bad abated. The plaintiffs filed a rejoinder contesting the applicability of the aforesaid provisions. As already stated the contention of the plaintiffs has been overruled. Hence this revision application.

3. The contention that was raised before the learned Munsif was that the disputed land was homestead and hence section 4(1)(c) of the Act did not apply. In this Court also the same stand has been taken by the petitioners.

4. Section 4 (1) (c) so far as relevant is as follows:

"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 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.

Xxx xxx xxx

(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 stand abated."

It would thus be seen that if the present suit is in respect of declaration of right or interest in any land such a suit abates under the provisions of section 4(1)(c) of the Act. Land has been defined under section 2(9) in these terms :

"Land' means agricultural land, and includes horticultural land, Kharaur land, land with bamboo clumps pasture land, cultivable waste land, homesteads, tanks, wells and water channels"

It would thus be seen that homestead has been specially mentioned as being included in the definition of land. When the legislature has specifically and clearly included homestead within the definition of land it would be doing violence to the language of the statutory provision to exclude homestead from the definition. This is not permissible by any accepted canon of interpretation.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners referred to section 3(1) which reads as follows :

"3. Declaration by State Government of its intention to make scheme for consolidation of holdings (1) With the object of effecting consolidation of holdings for the purpose of better cultivation of lands in any area, the Slate Government may after such enquiries as it may deem fit by notification in the Official Gazette, declare its intention to make a scheme for consolidation of holdings in that area."

Learned counsel pointing out that it is for the better cultivation of lands that the scheme of consolidation is contemplated in the Act. Homesteads have nothing to do with the same. This argument cannot be accepted for two reasons. Firstly, It is not correct to say that homesteads are unconnected with cultivation Although homestead has not been defined under the Act section 2 (20) states as under :

"all words and expressions used, but not defined in this Act, shall have-

(i) in their application to any are