R. N. MISRA, C. J.

( 1 ) PLAINTIFF's suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with her possession and enjoyment of the property having been declared to have partly abated by the trial Court under the provisions of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act (Orissa Act 21 of 1972) (hereinafter referred to as the 'act') she has filed this revision application challenging the order of partial abatement. When the revision petition came up for hearing before one of us, it was directed to be placed before a Division Bench as some single Judge decisions to which we shall make reference later took contradictory views oa the point in issue.

( 2 ) THE suit property covered both homestead and other lands. So far as homestead property is concerned, the learned Munsif held that there would be no abatement and accordingly in the impugned order he directed the suit to continue in regard to plots Nos. 534, 538, 539 and 540. He, however, directed the suit to stand abated so far as Khata Nos. 152, 249, 501, 537 and 271 are concerned.

( 3 ) THERE is no dispute that there is a notification under Section 3 of the Act in which the