JUDGMENT : Lalit Mohan Sharma, J. 1. A reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act has been made by the Collector. The petitioners on the one hand and the opposite party no. 1 on the other are making rival claims to the money paid by the State of Bihar, opposite party no. 2, in lieu of compensation of certain land acquired. The petitioners claimed before the court below that the proceeding must be held to have abated under Section 4(c) of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act'). The prayer has been rejected by the impugned ORDER :. In support of this application Mr. Bishwanath Agrawal has contended that the result in the proceeding is dependent on the decision on the question of title to the acquired land and since the land is agricultural and comes within the purview of the Act, the proceeding must be held to have abated. I do not find any merit in this argument. 2. The relevant part of Section 4 of the Act is in the following words: c) every proceeding for the correction of records and every suit and proceedings in respect of declaration of rights for 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 proceedings is pending stand abated. The present proceeding is not for declaration or adjudication of any right or interest in any land nor the dispute between the parties is such that it can be decided by the consolidation officer and consequently it has to be held that the section has no application. Merely for the reason that a question relating to the title to the land which at one point of time in the past belonged to one of the present parties has to be gone into for resolving the present dispute the provisions of the Act cannot be extended to the proceeding. Merely for the reason that a question relating to the title to the land which at one point of time in the past belonged to one of the present parties has to be gone into for resolving the present dispute the provisions of the Act cannot be extended to the proceeding. As was observed in 67 I.A. 222, it is settled law that the exclusion of the jurisdiction of the civil courts is not to be readily inferred but that such exclusion; must either be explicitly expressed or clearly implied. It is also equally well settled that a statute ousting the jurisdiction of a civil court must be strictly construed [see (1) Abdul vs. Bhawani AIR 1966 S.C. 1718 ). There does not appear any reason for enlarging the scope of clauses (b) and (c) of Section 4 of the Act. To hold that the present proceeding has abated, will lead to the further conclusion that the consolidation officer shall decide this dispute. He has no such jurisdiction. For these reasons this revision application is dismissed but without costs. Application dismissed.