JUDGMENT : 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. 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 area in which the Bihar Tenancy Act, 1885 (VIII of 1885), is in force, the same meaning as• are assigned to them in that Act; (ii) in their application to any area in which the Chotanagpur Tenany Act, 1908 (Ben. Act, VI of 1908), is in force, the same meaning as are assigned to them in that Act, and (iii) in their application to any area in which the Santhal Parganas Tenancy (Supplementary Provisions) Act, 1949 (Bihar Act XIV) of 1949), is in force, the same meaning as are assigned to them in that Act." Thus the expression homestead would have the same meaning as in the respective tenancy laws, depending on where the land is situate Under the tenancy law homestead has an accepted connotation. Without trying to be exhaustive one could say that homesteads arc connected with cultivation. Thus it would not be corect to say that homesteads within the meaning scribable to them under the tenancy law, have nothing to do or are unconnected with the cultivation of the lands. The second reason is, as already stated that when the language is clear, unambiguous, specific it would not be permissible to omitor obliterate the expression homestead from the definition of land. It mast, however, be made clear that if a building or structure does not come within the meaning of the expression homestead it cannot be said to be covered by the definition of the expression "land". To illustrate if, person who is not an agriculturist, has a house, unconnected with agricultural operations, such a house or building cannot be covered by section 4(1)(c) of the Act. Further where even an agriculturist has two houses one connected with agricultural operation and other unconnected therewith, it is the former which can come under the definition of "homestead". The reason is that the later house or building is not homestead within the meaning of law. Further where even an agriculturist has two houses one connected with agricultural operation and other unconnected therewith, it is the former which can come under the definition of "homestead". The reason is that the later house or building is not homestead within the meaning of law. It must also be clarified that where a controversy arises whether a building is homestead or not, the court would have to decide this controversy before applying the provisions of section 4(1)(c) of the Act. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner drew our attention to section 2(3) which defines "consolidation", which is as follows :- "(3) "Consolidation" includes re-arrangement of parcels of land comprised in a holding or in different holding for the purpose of rendering such holdings more compact. (Explanation-for the purpose of this clause, holding shall not Include the following :- (i) Land which was orchard or grave in the agricultural year immediately preceding the year in which the notification under section 3 was issued. (ii) Land subject to alluvial action and intensive soil erosion. (iii) such compact areas as are normally subject to prolonged water logging. (iv) such other areas as the Director of Consolidation may declare to be unsuitable for the purpose of consolidation. By virtue of the explanation it is possible that the Director of Consolidation may declare certain lands or class of lands as unsuitable for the purpose of consolidation. If the Director issues a declaration excluding homesteads from the operation of the consolidation, the consolidation operation may not be carried out in respect of homestead lands. But since no notification has been issued to that effect homestead lands cannot be treated to be beyond the purview of consolidation operation. 7. The fact that homesteads are not beyond the purview of the general scheme of the Act is also clear from a perusal of section 9 which envisages preparation of register of lands and section 13 which deals with the scheme of consolidation, read with rule 18 and the forms prescribed thereunder. Rule 18 states that the register of lands under section 9 and 13 shall be in the forms as mentioned there in. Form 17 relates to register of lands of raiyats. In column II of part I of Form 17 market value of homestead is to be mentioned. Similar is the position In respect of Form 18. Rule 18 states that the register of lands under section 9 and 13 shall be in the forms as mentioned there in. Form 17 relates to register of lands of raiyats. In column II of part I of Form 17 market value of homestead is to be mentioned. Similar is the position In respect of Form 18. These are clear Indications of the fact that homestead lands, within the meaning of law, have to be taken into consideration while pre raring the scheme of consolidation. For this reason also it cannot be held that there is no abatement of suit under section 4(1)(c) in respect of the homestead lands. 8. Having held that homestead lands are covered within the definition of land, I must state that the Government will be well advised to consider the advisability of excluding the homesteads from the operation of consolidation schemes. The reason is that if they are not excluded the consolidation authorities will have to even partition homesteads in view of section 8 A of the Act. The time spent in effecting partition of homesteads could in my view, be better utilised in conscentrating the attention on other important find more vital aspects of the scheme of consolidation. As already pointed out it would be possible to exclude homesteads from the purview of the consolidation proceedings by issuing a relevant declaration either under section 2 (3) of the Act. 9. In the result, this application is dismissed, but without costs, as in this case it is not in dispute that the subject matter of the suit is not "homestead" land. I agree. Application dismissed.